Appendix E
778
Volume/Outflow Calcs
d = 0.01’ (Und. Sys. Begins to Fill) - Gravel Only V Trench = (72) (29) (0.01) = 20.88 (40% Void) = 8.35 cf = 0.0002 af Infiltration Rate Per Report 25.6i in/hr
Safety Factor = 3
Design Rate = 25.6/3 = 8.53 in/hr
QOut = (72) (29) (8.53/12)/((60 m/hr)(60 s/m)) = 0.41 cfs
d = 0.1’
V Trench = (72) (29) (0.1)(40%) = 208.8 (0.40) = 83.5 cf = 0.0019 af
QOut = 0.41 cfs
d = 1.1’ (Und. Sys. – Pipe Begins to Fill) Pipe = 208 LF 7 ft Ø V Trench = (72) (29) (1.1) = 2,296.8cf
V Pipes - King’s Table 7 - 4
d = 0.1 = 0.0167 Ca= 0.0023 A = CaD2 = 0.0023 (7)2 = 0.113 V = 208 (0.113) = 23.44 cf D 7
V Gravel = (V Trench – V Pipes)(40%) = (2,296.8 – 23.44)(0.40) = 358.11 cf V Total = V pipe + V Gravel = 23.44 + 358.11 = 381.55 cf = 0.0088 af
QOut = 0.41 cfs
d= 2.75’ (Und. Sys. – Pipe 25% Full)
V Trench = (72) (29) (2.75) = 5,742 cf
V Pipes - King’s Table 7 - 4
d = 1.75 = 0.25 Ca= 0.1535 A = CaD2 = 0.1535 (7)2 = 3.62 V = 208 (3.62) = 752.96 cf D 7
V Gravel = (V Trench – V Pipes)(40%) = (5,742 – 752.96)(0.40) = 1,995.62 cf V Total = V pipe + V Gravel = 752.99 + 1,995.62 = 2,748.58 cf = 0.0631 af
QOut = 0.41 cfs
d = 4.50‘ (Und. Sys. – Pipe 50% Full)
V Trench = (72) (29) (4.50) = 9,396 cf
V Pipes - King’s Table 7 - 4
d = 3.50 = 0.50 Ca= 0.393 A = CaD2 = 0.393 (7)2 = 19.25 V = 208 (19.25) = 4,004 cf D 7
V Gravel = (V Trench – V Pipes)(40%) = (9,396 – 4,004)(0.40) = 2,156.8 cf V Total = V pipe + V Gravel = 4,004 + 2,156.8 = 6,156.8 cf = 0.1413 af
QOut = 0.41 cf
779
d = 6.25‘ (Und. Sys. – Pipe 75% Full)
V Trench = (72) (29) (6.25) = 13,050 cf
V Pipes - King’s Table 7 - 4
d = 5.25 = 0.75 Ca= 0.632 A = CaD2 = 0.632 (7)2 = 30.97 V = 208 (30.97) = 6,441.75 cf D 7
V Gravel = (V Trench – V Pipes)(40%) = (13,050 – 6,441.76)(0.40) = 2,643.30 cf V Total = V pipe + V Gravel = 6,441.76 + 2,643.3 = 9,085.06 cf = 0.2086 af
QOut = 0.41 cf
d = 8.0‘ (Und. Sys. – Pipe 100% Full)
V Trench = (72) (29) (8) = 16,704 cf
V Pipes = (Length Pipes)π(r)2 = (208)(3.5)2 π = 8,004.78 V Gravel = (V Trench – V Pipes)(40%) = (16,704 – 8,004.78)(0.40) = 3,479.69 cf V Total = V pipe + V Gravel = 8,004.78 + 3,479.69 = 11,484.47 cf = 0.2636 af
QOut = 0.41 cf
d = 8.1‘ (Und. Sys. – Filling Gravel Just Above Pipe)
V Trench = (72) (29) (8.1) = 16,912.8 cf
V Pipes = (Length Pipes)π(r)2 = (208)(3.5)2 π = 8,004.78 V Gravel = (V Trench – V Pipes)(40%) = (16,912.8 – 8,004.78)(0.40) = 3,563.21 cf V Total = V pipe + V Gravel = 8,004.78 + 3,563.21 = 11,567.9 cf = 0.2656 af
QOut = 0.41 cfs
d = 9.0‘ (Und. Sys. Is Full)
V Trench = (72) (29) (9.0) = 18,792 cf
V Pipes = (Length Pipes)π(r)2 = (208)(3.5)2 π = 8,004.78 V Gravel = (V Trench – V Pipes)(40%) = (18,792 – 8,004.78)(0.40) = 4,314.89 cf V Total = V pipe + V Gravel = 8,004.78 + 4,314.89 = 12,319.67 cf = 0.2828 af
QOut = 0.41 cfs
780
d = 9.1‘ Overflow/Bubble out of Und. Sys.
0.1’ Depth in 12Ø” Outflow pipe)
Insignificant volume Addition
VTotal = 0.2828 af
Kings Tabel 7-14
Q Pipe = K d8/3 s1/2
n
d = 0.1’ D = 1’ n = 0.013 s = 0.005
d = 0.1 = 0.1 K= 0.0097 Q = (0.0097)(1)8/3(0.005)1/2 = 0.052 D 1 0.013
Q Pipe = 0.05 cfs Q system = 0.41cfs
Q total = 0.05 + 0.41 = 0.46 cfs
d = 9.5‘ Overflow/Bubble out of Und. Sys.
0.5’ Depth in 12Ø” Outflow pipe)
Insignificant volume Addition
VTotal = 0.2828 af s=0.005
Kings Tabel 7-14
Q Pipe = K d8/3 s1/2
n
d = 0.5’ D = 1’ n = 0.013 s = 0.005
d = 0.5 = 0.5 K= 0.232 Q = (0.232)(1)8/3(0.005)1/2 = 1.26cfs D 1 0.013
Q Pipe = 1.26 cfs Q System = 0.41cfs
Q total = 1.26 + 0.41 = 1.67 cfs
d = 10.0‘ Overflow/Bubble out of Und. Sys.
1.0’ Depth in 12Ø” Outflow pipe)
Insignificant volume Addition
VTotal = 0.2828 af s=0.005
Kings Tabel 7-14
Q Pipe = K d8/3 s1/2
n
d = 1’ D = 1’ n = 0.013 s= 0.005
d = 1 = 1 K= 0.463 Q = (0.463)(1)8/3(0.005)1/2 = 2.51cfs D 1 0.013
Q Pipe = 2.92 cfs Q System = 0.41cfs
Q total = 2.51 + 0.41 = 2.92 cfs
781
FLOOD HYDROGRAPH ROUTING PROGRAM
Copyright (c) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 ‐ 2005
Study date: 07/24/24
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ JN 4113 FLOOD ROUTING
2 YEAR 3 HUR STORM
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Program License Serial Number 5016
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ********************* HYDROGRAPH INFORMATION ********************** From study/file name: 4113UH2Y3H.rte
****************************HYDROGRAPH DATA**************************** Number of intervals = 41
Time interval = 5.0 (Min.)
Maximum/Peak flow rate = 4.432 (CFS)
Total volume = 0.133 (Ac.Ft)
Status of hydrographs being held in storage
Stream 1 Stream 2 Stream 3 Stream 4 Stream 5
Peak (CFS) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Vol (Ac.Ft) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 *********************************************************************** ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 2.000 **** RETARDING BASIN ROUTING ****
______________________________________________________________________ User entry of depth‐outflow‐storage data
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Total number of inflow hydrograph intervals = 41
Hydrograph time unit = 5.000 (Min.)
Initial depth in storage basin = 0.00(Ft.)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Initial basin depth = 0.00 (Ft.)
Initial basin storage = 0.00 (Ac.Ft)
Initial basin outflow = 0.00 (CFS)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Depth vs. Storage and Depth vs. Discharge data:
Basin Depth Storage Outflow (S‐O*dt/2) (S+O*dt/2) (Ft.) (Ac.Ft) (CFS) (Ac.Ft) (Ac.Ft)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.010 0.001 0.410 ‐0.000 0.002
0.100 0.002 0.410 0.001 0.003
1.100 0.009 0.410 0.008 0.010
2.750 0.063 0.410 0.062 0.064
4.500 0.141 0.410 0.140 0.142
6.250 0.209 0.410 0.208 0.210
782
8.000 0.264 0.410 0.263 0.265
8.100 0.266 0.410 0.265 0.267
9.000 0.283 0.410 0.282 0.284
9.100 0.284 0.460 0.282 0.286
9.500 0.285 1.670 0.279 0.291
10.000 0.286 2.920 0.276 0.296
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Hydrograph Detention Basin Routing
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Graph values: 'I'= unit inflow; 'O'=outflow at time shown ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Time Inflow Outflow Storage Depth (Hours) (CFS) (CFS) (Ac.Ft) .0 1.1 2.22 3.32 4.43 (Ft.)
0.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.417 0.03 0.02 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.500 0.19 0.13 0.000 OI | | | | 0.00
1.583 0.40 0.33 0.001 | O | | | | 0.01
1.667 0.51 0.41 0.001 | OI | | | | 0.05
1.750 0.59 0.41 0.002 | O I | | | | 0.15
1.833 0.70 0.41 0.004 | O I | | | | 0.38
1.917 0.89 0.41 0.007 | O I | | | | 0.76
2.000 1.26 0.41 0.011 | O |I | | | 1.17
2.083 2.22 0.41 0.020 | O | I | | 1.45
2.167 4.30 0.41 0.040 | O | | | I| 2.05
2.250 4.43 0.41 0.067 | O | | | I 2.84
2.333 2.16 0.41 0.087 | O | I| | | 3.29
2.417 1.00 0.41 0.095 | O I| | | | 3.47
2.500 0.49 0.41 0.097 | OI | | | | 3.52
2.583 0.12 0.41 0.097 I O | | | | 3.51
2.667 0.03 0.41 0.094 I O | | | | 3.46
2.750 0.01 0.41 0.092 I O | | | | 3.40
2.833 0.00 0.41 0.089 I O | | | | 3.33
2.917 0.00 0.41 0.086 I O | | | | 3.27
3.000 0.00 0.41 0.083 I O | | | | 3.21 783
3.083 0.00 0.41 0.081 I O | | | | 3.14
3.167 0.00 0.41 0.078 I O | | | | 3.08
3.250 0.00 0.41 0.075 I O | | | | 3.02
3.333 0.00 0.41 0.072 I O | | | | 2.95
3.417 0.00 0.41 0.069 I O | | | | 2.89
3.500 0.00 0.41 0.066 I O | | | | 2.83
3.583 0.00 0.41 0.064 I O | | | | 2.76
3.667 0.00 0.41 0.061 I O | | | | 2.68
3.750 0.00 0.41 0.058 I O | | | | 2.60
3.833 0.00 0.41 0.055 I O | | | | 2.51
3.917 0.00 0.41 0.052 I O | | | | 2.42
4.000 0.00 0.41 0.049 I O | | | | 2.34
4.083 0.00 0.41 0.047 I O | | | | 2.25
4.167 0.00 0.41 0.044 I O | | | | 2.16
4.250 0.00 0.41 0.041 I O | | | | 2.08
4.333 0.00 0.41 0.038 I O | | | | 1.99
4.417 0.00 0.41 0.035 I O | | | | 1.90
4.500 0.00 0.41 0.033 I O | | | | 1.82
4.583 0.00 0.41 0.030 I O | | | | 1.73
4.667 0.00 0.41 0.027 I O | | | | 1.65
4.750 0.00 0.41 0.024 I O | | | | 1.56
4.833 0.00 0.41 0.021 I O | | | | 1.47
4.917 0.00 0.41 0.018 I O | | | | 1.39
5.000 0.00 0.41 0.016 I O | | | | 1.30
5.083 0.00 0.41 0.013 I O | | | | 1.21
5.167 0.00 0.41 0.010 I O | | | | 1.13
5.250 0.00 0.41 0.007 I O | | | | 0.83
5.333 0.00 0.41 0.004 I O | | | | 0.43
5.417 0.00 0.41 0.001 I O | | | | 0.05
5.500 0.00 0.01 0.000 O | | | | 0.00 ****************************HYDROGRAPH DATA**************************** Number of intervals = 66
Time interval = 5.0 (Min.)
Maximum/Peak flow rate = 0.410 (CFS)
Total volume = 0.133 (Ac.Ft)
Status of hydrographs being held in storage
Stream 1 Stream 2 Stream 3 Stream 4 Stream 5
Peak (CFS) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Vol (Ac.Ft) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 *********************************************************************** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 784
FLOOD HYDROGRAPH ROUTING PROGRAM
Copyright (c) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 ‐ 2005
Study date: 07/24/24
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ JN 4113 FLOOD ROUTING
2 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Program License Serial Number 5016
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ********************* HYDROGRAPH INFORMATION ********************** From study/file name: 4113UH2Y24H.rte
****************************HYDROGRAPH DATA**************************** Number of intervals = 293
Time interval = 5.0 (Min.)
Maximum/Peak flow rate = 4.432 (CFS)
Total volume = 0.134 (Ac.Ft)
Status of hydrographs being held in storage
Stream 1 Stream 2 Stream 3 Stream 4 Stream 5
Peak (CFS) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Vol (Ac.Ft) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 *********************************************************************** ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 2.000 **** RETARDING BASIN ROUTING ****
______________________________________________________________________ User entry of depth‐outflow‐storage data
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Total number of inflow hydrograph intervals = 293
Hydrograph time unit = 5.000 (Min.)
Initial depth in storage basin = 0.00(Ft.)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Initial basin depth = 0.00 (Ft.)
Initial basin storage = 0.00 (Ac.Ft)
Initial basin outflow = 0.00 (CFS)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Depth vs. Storage and Depth vs. Discharge data:
Basin Depth Storage Outflow (S‐O*dt/2) (S+O*dt/2) (Ft.) (Ac.Ft) (CFS) (Ac.Ft) (Ac.Ft)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.010 0.001 0.410 ‐0.000 0.002
0.100 0.002 0.410 0.001 0.003
1.100 0.009 0.410 0.008 0.010
2.750 0.063 0.410 0.062 0.064
4.500 0.141 0.410 0.140 0.142
6.250 0.209 0.410 0.208 0.210
8.000 0.264 0.410 0.263 0.265
785
8.100 0.266 0.410 0.265 0.267
9.000 0.283 0.410 0.282 0.284
9.100 0.284 0.460 0.282 0.286
9.500 0.285 1.670 0.279 0.291
10.000 0.286 2.920 0.276 0.296
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Hydrograph Detention Basin Routing
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Graph values: 'I'= unit inflow; 'O'=outflow at time shown ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Time Inflow Outflow Storage Depth (Hours) (CFS) (CFS) (Ac.Ft) .0 1.1 2.22 3.32 4.43 (Ft.)
0.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00 786
3.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00 787
7.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00 788
11.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
15.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
15.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
15.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
15.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
15.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
15.417 0.03 0.02 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
15.500 0.19 0.13 0.000 OI | | | | 0.00
15.583 0.40 0.33 0.001 | O | | | | 0.01
15.667 0.51 0.41 0.001 | OI | | | | 0.05 789
15.750 0.59 0.41 0.002 | O I | | | | 0.15
15.833 0.70 0.41 0.004 | O I | | | | 0.38
15.917 0.89 0.41 0.007 | O I | | | | 0.76
16.000 1.26 0.41 0.011 | O |I | | | 1.17
16.083 2.22 0.41 0.020 | O | I | | 1.45
16.167 4.30 0.41 0.040 | O | | | I| 2.05
16.250 4.43 0.41 0.067 | O | | | I 2.84
16.333 2.16 0.41 0.087 | O | I| | | 3.29
16.417 1.00 0.41 0.095 | O I| | | | 3.47
16.500 0.49 0.41 0.097 | OI | | | | 3.52
16.583 0.12 0.41 0.097 I O | | | | 3.51
16.667 0.03 0.41 0.094 I O | | | | 3.46
16.750 0.01 0.41 0.092 I O | | | | 3.40
16.833 0.00 0.41 0.089 I O | | | | 3.33
16.917 0.00 0.41 0.086 I O | | | | 3.27
17.000 0.00 0.41 0.083 I O | | | | 3.21
17.083 0.00 0.41 0.081 I O | | | | 3.14
17.167 0.00 0.41 0.078 I O | | | | 3.08
17.250 0.00 0.41 0.075 I O | | | | 3.02
17.333 0.00 0.41 0.072 I O | | | | 2.95
17.417 0.00 0.41 0.069 I O | | | | 2.89
17.500 0.00 0.41 0.066 I O | | | | 2.83
17.583 0.00 0.41 0.064 I O | | | | 2.76
17.667 0.00 0.41 0.061 I O | | | | 2.68
17.750 0.00 0.41 0.058 I O | | | | 2.60
17.833 0.00 0.41 0.055 I O | | | | 2.51
17.917 0.00 0.41 0.052 I O | | | | 2.42
18.000 0.00 0.41 0.050 I O | | | | 2.34
18.083 0.00 0.41 0.047 I O | | | | 2.25
18.167 0.00 0.41 0.044 I O | | | | 2.17
18.250 0.00 0.41 0.041 I O | | | | 2.08
18.333 0.00 0.41 0.038 I O | | | | 1.99
18.417 0.00 0.41 0.035 I O | | | | 1.91
18.500 0.00 0.41 0.033 I O | | | | 1.82
18.583 0.00 0.41 0.030 I O | | | | 1.73
18.667 0.00 0.41 0.027 I O | | | | 1.65
18.750 0.00 0.41 0.024 I O | | | | 1.56
18.833 0.00 0.41 0.021 I O | | | | 1.48
18.917 0.00 0.41 0.018 I O | | | | 1.39
19.000 0.00 0.41 0.016 I O | | | | 1.30
19.083 0.00 0.41 0.013 I O | | | | 1.22
19.167 0.00 0.41 0.010 I O | | | | 1.13
19.250 0.00 0.41 0.007 I O | | | | 0.84
19.333 0.00 0.41 0.004 I O | | | | 0.44
19.417 0.00 0.41 0.002 I O | | | | 0.06
19.500 0.00 0.02 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
19.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
19.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
19.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
19.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00 790
19.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
20.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
20.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
20.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
20.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
20.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
20.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
20.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
20.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
20.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
20.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
20.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
20.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
21.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
21.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
21.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
21.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
21.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
21.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
21.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
21.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
21.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
21.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
21.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
21.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
22.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
22.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
22.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
22.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
22.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
22.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
22.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
22.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
22.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
22.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
22.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
22.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
23.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
23.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
23.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
23.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
23.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
23.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
23.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
23.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
23.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
23.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
23.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
23.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
24.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00 791
24.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
24.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
24.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
24.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
24.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
24.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00 ****************************HYDROGRAPH DATA**************************** Number of intervals = 294
Time interval = 5.0 (Min.)
Maximum/Peak flow rate = 0.410 (CFS)
Total volume = 0.134 (Ac.Ft)
Status of hydrographs being held in storage
Stream 1 Stream 2 Stream 3 Stream 4 Stream 5
Peak (CFS) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Vol (Ac.Ft) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 *********************************************************************** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 792
FLOOD HYDROGRAPH ROUTING PROGRAM
Copyright (c) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 ‐ 2005
Study date: 07/01/24
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ JN 4113 FLOOD ROUTING
10 YEAR 3 HOUR STORM
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Program License Serial Number 5016
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ********************* HYDROGRAPH INFORMATION ********************** From study/file name: 4113UH10Y3H.rte
****************************HYDROGRAPH DATA**************************** Number of intervals = 41
Time interval = 5.0 (Min.)
Maximum/Peak flow rate = 8.156 (CFS)
Total volume = 0.261 (Ac.Ft)
Status of hydrographs being held in storage
Stream 1 Stream 2 Stream 3 Stream 4 Stream 5
Peak (CFS) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Vol (Ac.Ft) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 *********************************************************************** ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 2.000 **** RETARDING BASIN ROUTING ****
______________________________________________________________________ User entry of depth‐outflow‐storage data
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Total number of inflow hydrograph intervals = 41
Hydrograph time unit = 5.000 (Min.)
Initial depth in storage basin = 0.00(Ft.)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Initial basin depth = 0.00 (Ft.)
Initial basin storage = 0.00 (Ac.Ft)
Initial basin outflow = 0.00 (CFS)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Depth vs. Storage and Depth vs. Discharge data:
Basin Depth Storage Outflow (S‐O*dt/2) (S+O*dt/2) (Ft.) (Ac.Ft) (CFS) (Ac.Ft) (Ac.Ft)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.010 0.001 0.410 ‐0.000 0.002
0.100 0.002 0.410 0.001 0.003
1.100 0.009 0.410 0.008 0.010
2.750 0.063 0.410 0.062 0.064
4.500 0.141 0.410 0.140 0.142
6.250 0.209 0.410 0.208 0.210
8.000 0.264 0.410 0.263 0.265
793
8.100 0.266 0.410 0.265 0.267
9.000 0.283 0.410 0.282 0.284
9.100 0.284 0.460 0.282 0.286
9.500 0.285 1.670 0.279 0.291
10.000 0.286 2.920 0.276 0.296
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Hydrograph Detention Basin Routing
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Graph values: 'I'= unit inflow; 'O'=outflow at time shown ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Time Inflow Outflow Storage Depth (Hours) (CFS) (CFS) (Ac.Ft) .0 2.0 4.08 6.12 8.16 (Ft.)
0.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.417 0.06 0.04 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.500 0.42 0.28 0.001 |O | | | | 0.01
1.583 0.86 0.41 0.003 |O I | | | | 0.20
1.667 1.12 0.41 0.007 |O I | | | | 0.77
1.750 1.32 0.41 0.012 |O I | | | | 1.20
1.833 1.58 0.41 0.019 |O I | | | | 1.42
1.917 1.95 0.41 0.029 |O I| | | | 1.70
2.000 2.61 0.41 0.042 |O | I | | | 2.10
2.083 4.32 0.41 0.063 |O | I | | 2.74
2.167 8.04 0.41 0.102 |O | | | I| 3.64
2.250 8.16 0.41 0.155 |O | | | I 4.87
2.333 4.12 0.41 0.195 |O | I | | 5.89
2.417 2.02 0.41 0.213 |O I| | | | 6.38
2.500 1.01 0.41 0.221 |O I | | | | 6.63
2.583 0.26 0.41 0.222 |O | | | | 6.68
2.667 0.06 0.41 0.221 IO | | | | 6.62
2.750 0.02 0.41 0.218 IO | | | | 6.54
2.833 0.00 0.41 0.215 IO | | | | 6.45
2.917 0.00 0.41 0.213 IO | | | | 6.36
3.000 0.00 0.41 0.210 IO | | | | 6.27
3.083 0.00 0.41 0.207 IO | | | | 6.20
3.167 0.00 0.41 0.204 IO | | | | 6.12 794
3.250 0.00 0.41 0.201 IO | | | | 6.05
3.333 0.00 0.41 0.198 IO | | | | 5.98
3.417 0.00 0.41 0.196 IO | | | | 5.90
3.500 0.00 0.41 0.193 IO | | | | 5.83
3.583 0.00 0.41 0.190 IO | | | | 5.76
3.667 0.00 0.41 0.187 IO | | | | 5.69
3.750 0.00 0.41 0.184 IO | | | | 5.61
3.833 0.00 0.41 0.181 IO | | | | 5.54
3.917 0.00 0.41 0.179 IO | | | | 5.47
4.000 0.00 0.41 0.176 IO | | | | 5.40
4.083 0.00 0.41 0.173 IO | | | | 5.32
4.167 0.00 0.41 0.170 IO | | | | 5.25
4.250 0.00 0.41 0.167 IO | | | | 5.18
4.333 0.00 0.41 0.165 IO | | | | 5.11
4.417 0.00 0.41 0.162 IO | | | | 5.03
4.500 0.00 0.41 0.159 IO | | | | 4.96
4.583 0.00 0.41 0.156 IO | | | | 4.89
4.667 0.00 0.41 0.153 IO | | | | 4.81
4.750 0.00 0.41 0.150 IO | | | | 4.74
4.833 0.00 0.41 0.148 IO | | | | 4.67
4.917 0.00 0.41 0.145 IO | | | | 4.60
5.000 0.00 0.41 0.142 IO | | | | 4.52
5.083 0.00 0.41 0.139 IO | | | | 4.46
5.167 0.00 0.41 0.136 IO | | | | 4.39
5.250 0.00 0.41 0.133 IO | | | | 4.33
5.333 0.00 0.41 0.131 IO | | | | 4.27
5.417 0.00 0.41 0.128 IO | | | | 4.20
5.500 0.00 0.41 0.125 IO | | | | 4.14
5.583 0.00 0.41 0.122 IO | | | | 4.08
5.667 0.00 0.41 0.119 IO | | | | 4.01
5.750 0.00 0.41 0.117 IO | | | | 3.95
5.833 0.00 0.41 0.114 IO | | | | 3.89
5.917 0.00 0.41 0.111 IO | | | | 3.82
6.000 0.00 0.41 0.108 IO | | | | 3.76
6.083 0.00 0.41 0.105 IO | | | | 3.70
6.167 0.00 0.41 0.102 IO | | | | 3.63
6.250 0.00 0.41 0.100 IO | | | | 3.57
6.333 0.00 0.41 0.097 IO | | | | 3.51
6.417 0.00 0.41 0.094 IO | | | | 3.44
6.500 0.00 0.41 0.091 IO | | | | 3.38
6.583 0.00 0.41 0.088 IO | | | | 3.32
6.667 0.00 0.41 0.085 IO | | | | 3.25
6.750 0.00 0.41 0.083 IO | | | | 3.19
6.833 0.00 0.41 0.080 IO | | | | 3.13
6.917 0.00 0.41 0.077 IO | | | | 3.06
7.000 0.00 0.41 0.074 IO | | | | 3.00
7.083 0.00 0.41 0.071 IO | | | | 2.94
7.167 0.00 0.41 0.069 IO | | | | 2.87
7.250 0.00 0.41 0.066 IO | | | | 2.81
7.333 0.00 0.41 0.063 IO | | | | 2.75 795
7.417 0.00 0.41 0.060 IO | | | | 2.66
7.500 0.00 0.41 0.057 IO | | | | 2.57
7.583 0.00 0.41 0.054 IO | | | | 2.49
7.667 0.00 0.41 0.052 IO | | | | 2.40
7.750 0.00 0.41 0.049 IO | | | | 2.31
7.833 0.00 0.41 0.046 IO | | | | 2.23
7.917 0.00 0.41 0.043 IO | | | | 2.14
8.000 0.00 0.41 0.040 IO | | | | 2.06
8.083 0.00 0.41 0.037 IO | | | | 1.97
8.167 0.00 0.41 0.035 IO | | | | 1.88
8.250 0.00 0.41 0.032 IO | | | | 1.80
8.333 0.00 0.41 0.029 IO | | | | 1.71
8.417 0.00 0.41 0.026 IO | | | | 1.62
8.500 0.00 0.41 0.023 IO | | | | 1.54
8.583 0.00 0.41 0.021 IO | | | | 1.45
8.667 0.00 0.41 0.018 IO | | | | 1.37
8.750 0.00 0.41 0.015 IO | | | | 1.28
8.833 0.00 0.41 0.012 IO | | | | 1.19
8.917 0.00 0.41 0.009 IO | | | | 1.11
9.000 0.00 0.41 0.006 IO | | | | 0.73
9.083 0.00 0.41 0.004 IO | | | | 0.32
9.167 0.00 0.37 0.001 IO | | | | 0.01
9.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00 ****************************HYDROGRAPH DATA**************************** Number of intervals = 111
Time interval = 5.0 (Min.)
Maximum/Peak flow rate = 0.410 (CFS)
Total volume = 0.262 (Ac.Ft)
Status of hydrographs being held in storage
Stream 1 Stream 2 Stream 3 Stream 4 Stream 5
Peak (CFS) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Vol (Ac.Ft) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 *********************************************************************** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 796
FLOOD HYDROGRAPH ROUTING PROGRAM
Copyright (c) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 ‐ 2005
Study date: 07/01/24
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ JN 4113 FLOOD ROUTING
10 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Program License Serial Number 5016
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ********************* HYDROGRAPH INFORMATION ********************** From study/file name: 4113UH10Y24H.rte
****************************HYDROGRAPH DATA**************************** Number of intervals = 293
Time interval = 5.0 (Min.)
Maximum/Peak flow rate = 8.156 (CFS)
Total volume = 0.262 (Ac.Ft)
Status of hydrographs being held in storage
Stream 1 Stream 2 Stream 3 Stream 4 Stream 5
Peak (CFS) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Vol (Ac.Ft) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 *********************************************************************** ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 2.000 **** RETARDING BASIN ROUTING ****
______________________________________________________________________ User entry of depth‐outflow‐storage data
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Total number of inflow hydrograph intervals = 293
Hydrograph time unit = 5.000 (Min.)
Initial depth in storage basin = 0.00(Ft.)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Initial basin depth = 0.00 (Ft.)
Initial basin storage = 0.00 (Ac.Ft)
Initial basin outflow = 0.00 (CFS)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Depth vs. Storage and Depth vs. Discharge data:
Basin Depth Storage Outflow (S‐O*dt/2) (S+O*dt/2) (Ft.) (Ac.Ft) (CFS) (Ac.Ft) (Ac.Ft)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.010 0.001 0.410 ‐0.000 0.002
0.100 0.002 0.410 0.001 0.003
1.100 0.009 0.410 0.008 0.010
2.750 0.063 0.410 0.062 0.064
4.500 0.141 0.410 0.140 0.142
6.250 0.209 0.410 0.208 0.210
8.000 0.264 0.410 0.263 0.265
797
8.100 0.266 0.410 0.265 0.267
9.000 0.283 0.410 0.282 0.284
9.100 0.284 0.460 0.282 0.286
9.500 0.285 1.670 0.279 0.291
10.000 0.286 2.920 0.276 0.296
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Hydrograph Detention Basin Routing
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Graph values: 'I'= unit inflow; 'O'=outflow at time shown ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Time Inflow Outflow Storage Depth (Hours) (CFS) (CFS) (Ac.Ft) .0 2.0 4.08 6.12 8.16 (Ft.)
0.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00 798
3.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00 799
7.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00 800
11.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
15.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
15.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
15.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
15.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
15.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
15.417 0.06 0.04 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
15.500 0.42 0.28 0.001 |O | | | | 0.01
15.583 0.86 0.41 0.003 |O I | | | | 0.20 801
15.667 1.12 0.41 0.007 |O I | | | | 0.77
15.750 1.32 0.41 0.012 |O I | | | | 1.20
15.833 1.58 0.41 0.019 |O I | | | | 1.42
15.917 1.95 0.41 0.029 |O I| | | | 1.70
16.000 2.61 0.41 0.042 |O | I | | | 2.10
16.083 4.32 0.41 0.063 |O | I | | 2.74
16.167 8.04 0.41 0.102 |O | | | I| 3.64
16.250 8.16 0.41 0.155 |O | | | I 4.87
16.333 4.12 0.41 0.195 |O | I | | 5.89
16.417 2.02 0.41 0.213 |O I| | | | 6.38
16.500 1.01 0.41 0.221 |O I | | | | 6.63
16.583 0.26 0.41 0.222 |O | | | | 6.68
16.667 0.06 0.41 0.221 IO | | | | 6.62
16.750 0.02 0.41 0.218 IO | | | | 6.54
16.833 0.00 0.41 0.215 IO | | | | 6.45
16.917 0.00 0.41 0.213 IO | | | | 6.36
17.000 0.00 0.41 0.210 IO | | | | 6.27
17.083 0.00 0.41 0.207 IO | | | | 6.20
17.167 0.00 0.41 0.204 IO | | | | 6.12
17.250 0.00 0.41 0.201 IO | | | | 6.05
17.333 0.00 0.41 0.198 IO | | | | 5.98
17.417 0.00 0.41 0.196 IO | | | | 5.91
17.500 0.00 0.41 0.193 IO | | | | 5.83
17.583 0.00 0.41 0.190 IO | | | | 5.76
17.667 0.00 0.41 0.187 IO | | | | 5.69
17.750 0.00 0.41 0.184 IO | | | | 5.62
17.833 0.00 0.41 0.182 IO | | | | 5.54
17.917 0.00 0.41 0.179 IO | | | | 5.47
18.000 0.00 0.41 0.176 IO | | | | 5.40
18.083 0.00 0.41 0.173 IO | | | | 5.33
18.167 0.00 0.41 0.170 IO | | | | 5.25
18.250 0.00 0.41 0.167 IO | | | | 5.18
18.333 0.00 0.41 0.165 IO | | | | 5.11
18.417 0.00 0.41 0.162 IO | | | | 5.03
18.500 0.00 0.41 0.159 IO | | | | 4.96
18.583 0.00 0.41 0.156 IO | | | | 4.89
18.667 0.00 0.41 0.153 IO | | | | 4.82
18.750 0.00 0.41 0.150 IO | | | | 4.74
18.833 0.00 0.41 0.148 IO | | | | 4.67
18.917 0.00 0.41 0.145 IO | | | | 4.60
19.000 0.00 0.41 0.142 IO | | | | 4.53
19.083 0.00 0.41 0.139 IO | | | | 4.46
19.167 0.00 0.41 0.136 IO | | | | 4.40
19.250 0.00 0.41 0.134 IO | | | | 4.33
19.333 0.00 0.41 0.131 IO | | | | 4.27
19.417 0.00 0.41 0.128 IO | | | | 4.21
19.500 0.00 0.41 0.125 IO | | | | 4.14
19.583 0.00 0.41 0.122 IO | | | | 4.08
19.667 0.00 0.41 0.119 IO | | | | 4.02
19.750 0.00 0.41 0.117 IO | | | | 3.95 802
19.833 0.00 0.41 0.114 IO | | | | 3.89
19.917 0.00 0.41 0.111 IO | | | | 3.83
20.000 0.00 0.41 0.108 IO | | | | 3.76
20.083 0.00 0.41 0.105 IO | | | | 3.70
20.167 0.00 0.41 0.103 IO | | | | 3.64
20.250 0.00 0.41 0.100 IO | | | | 3.57
20.333 0.00 0.41 0.097 IO | | | | 3.51
20.417 0.00 0.41 0.094 IO | | | | 3.45
20.500 0.00 0.41 0.091 IO | | | | 3.38
20.583 0.00 0.41 0.088 IO | | | | 3.32
20.667 0.00 0.41 0.086 IO | | | | 3.26
20.750 0.00 0.41 0.083 IO | | | | 3.19
20.833 0.00 0.41 0.080 IO | | | | 3.13
20.917 0.00 0.41 0.077 IO | | | | 3.07
21.000 0.00 0.41 0.074 IO | | | | 3.00
21.083 0.00 0.41 0.071 IO | | | | 2.94
21.167 0.00 0.41 0.069 IO | | | | 2.88
21.250 0.00 0.41 0.066 IO | | | | 2.81
21.333 0.00 0.41 0.063 IO | | | | 2.75
21.417 0.00 0.41 0.060 IO | | | | 2.66
21.500 0.00 0.41 0.057 IO | | | | 2.58
21.583 0.00 0.41 0.055 IO | | | | 2.49
21.667 0.00 0.41 0.052 IO | | | | 2.40
21.750 0.00 0.41 0.049 IO | | | | 2.32
21.833 0.00 0.41 0.046 IO | | | | 2.23
21.917 0.00 0.41 0.043 IO | | | | 2.15
22.000 0.00 0.41 0.040 IO | | | | 2.06
22.083 0.00 0.41 0.038 IO | | | | 1.97
22.167 0.00 0.41 0.035 IO | | | | 1.89
22.250 0.00 0.41 0.032 IO | | | | 1.80
22.333 0.00 0.41 0.029 IO | | | | 1.71
22.417 0.00 0.41 0.026 IO | | | | 1.63
22.500 0.00 0.41 0.023 IO | | | | 1.54
22.583 0.00 0.41 0.021 IO | | | | 1.46
22.667 0.00 0.41 0.018 IO | | | | 1.37
22.750 0.00 0.41 0.015 IO | | | | 1.28
22.833 0.00 0.41 0.012 IO | | | | 1.20
22.917 0.00 0.41 0.009 IO | | | | 1.11
23.000 0.00 0.41 0.007 IO | | | | 0.75
23.083 0.00 0.41 0.004 IO | | | | 0.34
23.167 0.00 0.39 0.001 IO | | | | 0.01
23.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
23.333 0.00 0.01 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
23.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
23.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
23.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
23.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
23.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
23.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
23.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00 803
24.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
24.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
24.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
24.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
24.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
24.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
24.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00 ****************************HYDROGRAPH DATA**************************** Number of intervals = 294
Time interval = 5.0 (Min.)
Maximum/Peak flow rate = 0.410 (CFS)
Total volume = 0.262 (Ac.Ft)
Status of hydrographs being held in storage
Stream 1 Stream 2 Stream 3 Stream 4 Stream 5
Peak (CFS) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Vol (Ac.Ft) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 *********************************************************************** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 804
FLOOD HYDROGRAPH ROUTING PROGRAM
Copyright (c) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 ‐ 2005
Study date: 07/24/24
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ JN 4113 FLOOD ROUTING
25 YEAR 3 HOUR STORM
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Program License Serial Number 5016
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ********************* HYDROGRAPH INFORMATION ********************** From study/file name: 4113UH25Y3H.rte
****************************HYDROGRAPH DATA**************************** Number of intervals = 41
Time interval = 5.0 (Min.)
Maximum/Peak flow rate = 10.272 (CFS)
Total volume = 0.336 (Ac.Ft)
Status of hydrographs being held in storage
Stream 1 Stream 2 Stream 3 Stream 4 Stream 5
Peak (CFS) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Vol (Ac.Ft) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 *********************************************************************** ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 2.000 **** RETARDING BASIN ROUTING ****
______________________________________________________________________ User entry of depth‐outflow‐storage data
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Total number of inflow hydrograph intervals = 41
Hydrograph time unit = 5.000 (Min.)
Initial depth in storage basin = 0.00(Ft.)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Initial basin depth = 0.00 (Ft.)
Initial basin storage = 0.00 (Ac.Ft)
Initial basin outflow = 0.00 (CFS)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Depth vs. Storage and Depth vs. Discharge data:
Basin Depth Storage Outflow (S‐O*dt/2) (S+O*dt/2) (Ft.) (Ac.Ft) (CFS) (Ac.Ft) (Ac.Ft)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.010 0.001 0.410 ‐0.000 0.002
0.100 0.002 0.410 0.001 0.003
1.100 0.009 0.410 0.008 0.010
2.750 0.063 0.410 0.062 0.064
4.500 0.141 0.410 0.140 0.142
6.250 0.209 0.410 0.208 0.210
8.000 0.264 0.410 0.263 0.265
805
8.100 0.266 0.410 0.265 0.267
9.000 0.283 0.410 0.282 0.284
9.100 0.284 0.460 0.282 0.286
9.500 0.285 1.670 0.279 0.291
10.000 0.286 2.920 0.276 0.296
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Hydrograph Detention Basin Routing
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Graph values: 'I'= unit inflow; 'O'=outflow at time shown ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Time Inflow Outflow Storage Depth (Hours) (CFS) (CFS) (Ac.Ft) .0 2.6 5.14 7.70 10.27 (Ft.)
0.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.417 0.09 0.05 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.500 0.57 0.37 0.001 |O | | | | 0.01
1.583 1.17 0.41 0.004 |O I | | | | 0.41
1.667 1.51 0.41 0.011 |O I | | | | 1.15
1.750 1.77 0.41 0.019 |O I | | | | 1.41
1.833 2.10 0.41 0.030 |O I | | | | 1.73
1.917 2.55 0.41 0.043 |O I| | | | 2.13
2.000 3.39 0.41 0.060 |O | I | | | 2.67
2.083 5.52 0.41 0.088 |O | |I | | 3.32
2.167 10.17 0.41 0.139 |O | | | I| 4.47
2.250 10.27 0.41 0.207 |O | | | I 6.20
2.333 5.24 0.41 0.258 |O | I | | 7.80
2.417 2.62 0.41 0.282 |O I | | | 8.94
2.500 1.33 2.44 0.286 | I O| | | | 9.81
2.583 0.34 0.41 0.282 |O | | | | 8.92
2.667 0.08 0.41 0.280 IO | | | | 8.85
2.750 0.02 0.41 0.278 IO | | | | 8.72
2.833 0.00 0.41 0.275 IO | | | | 8.58
2.917 0.00 0.41 0.272 IO | | | | 8.43
3.000 0.00 0.41 0.269 IO | | | | 8.28
3.083 0.00 0.41 0.267 IO | | | | 8.13 806
3.167 0.00 0.41 0.264 IO | | | | 7.99
3.250 0.00 0.41 0.261 IO | | | | 7.90
3.333 0.00 0.41 0.258 IO | | | | 7.81
3.417 0.00 0.41 0.255 IO | | | | 7.72
3.500 0.00 0.41 0.252 IO | | | | 7.63
3.583 0.00 0.41 0.250 IO | | | | 7.54
3.667 0.00 0.41 0.247 IO | | | | 7.45
3.750 0.00 0.41 0.244 IO | | | | 7.36
3.833 0.00 0.41 0.241 IO | | | | 7.27
3.917 0.00 0.41 0.238 IO | | | | 7.18
4.000 0.00 0.41 0.235 IO | | | | 7.09
4.083 0.00 0.41 0.233 IO | | | | 7.00
4.167 0.00 0.41 0.230 IO | | | | 6.91
4.250 0.00 0.41 0.227 IO | | | | 6.82
4.333 0.00 0.41 0.224 IO | | | | 6.73
4.417 0.00 0.41 0.221 IO | | | | 6.64
4.500 0.00 0.41 0.219 IO | | | | 6.55
4.583 0.00 0.41 0.216 IO | | | | 6.46
4.667 0.00 0.41 0.213 IO | | | | 6.37
4.750 0.00 0.41 0.210 IO | | | | 6.28
4.833 0.00 0.41 0.207 IO | | | | 6.20
4.917 0.00 0.41 0.204 IO | | | | 6.13
5.000 0.00 0.41 0.202 IO | | | | 6.06
5.083 0.00 0.41 0.199 IO | | | | 5.99
5.167 0.00 0.41 0.196 IO | | | | 5.91
5.250 0.00 0.41 0.193 IO | | | | 5.84
5.333 0.00 0.41 0.190 IO | | | | 5.77
5.417 0.00 0.41 0.187 IO | | | | 5.70
5.500 0.00 0.41 0.185 IO | | | | 5.62
5.583 0.00 0.41 0.182 IO | | | | 5.55
5.667 0.00 0.41 0.179 IO | | | | 5.48
5.750 0.00 0.41 0.176 IO | | | | 5.41
5.833 0.00 0.41 0.173 IO | | | | 5.33
5.917 0.00 0.41 0.171 IO | | | | 5.26
6.000 0.00 0.41 0.168 IO | | | | 5.19
6.083 0.00 0.41 0.165 IO | | | | 5.11
6.167 0.00 0.41 0.162 IO | | | | 5.04
6.250 0.00 0.41 0.159 IO | | | | 4.97
6.333 0.00 0.41 0.156 IO | | | | 4.90
6.417 0.00 0.41 0.154 IO | | | | 4.82
6.500 0.00 0.41 0.151 IO | | | | 4.75
6.583 0.00 0.41 0.148 IO | | | | 4.68
6.667 0.00 0.41 0.145 IO | | | | 4.61
6.750 0.00 0.41 0.142 IO | | | | 4.53
6.833 0.00 0.41 0.139 IO | | | | 4.47
6.917 0.00 0.41 0.137 IO | | | | 4.40
7.000 0.00 0.41 0.134 IO | | | | 4.34
7.083 0.00 0.41 0.131 IO | | | | 4.28
7.167 0.00 0.41 0.128 IO | | | | 4.21
7.250 0.00 0.41 0.125 IO | | | | 4.15 807
7.333 0.00 0.41 0.123 IO | | | | 4.09
7.417 0.00 0.41 0.120 IO | | | | 4.02
7.500 0.00 0.41 0.117 IO | | | | 3.96
7.583 0.00 0.41 0.114 IO | | | | 3.90
7.667 0.00 0.41 0.111 IO | | | | 3.83
7.750 0.00 0.41 0.108 IO | | | | 3.77
7.833 0.00 0.41 0.106 IO | | | | 3.71
7.917 0.00 0.41 0.103 IO | | | | 3.64
8.000 0.00 0.41 0.100 IO | | | | 3.58
8.083 0.00 0.41 0.097 IO | | | | 3.52
8.167 0.00 0.41 0.094 IO | | | | 3.45
8.250 0.00 0.41 0.091 IO | | | | 3.39
8.333 0.00 0.41 0.089 IO | | | | 3.33
8.417 0.00 0.41 0.086 IO | | | | 3.26
8.500 0.00 0.41 0.083 IO | | | | 3.20
8.583 0.00 0.41 0.080 IO | | | | 3.14
8.667 0.00 0.41 0.077 IO | | | | 3.07
8.750 0.00 0.41 0.075 IO | | | | 3.01
8.833 0.00 0.41 0.072 IO | | | | 2.95
8.917 0.00 0.41 0.069 IO | | | | 2.88
9.000 0.00 0.41 0.066 IO | | | | 2.82
9.083 0.00 0.41 0.063 IO | | | | 2.76
9.167 0.00 0.41 0.060 IO | | | | 2.67
9.250 0.00 0.41 0.058 IO | | | | 2.58
9.333 0.00 0.41 0.055 IO | | | | 2.50
9.417 0.00 0.41 0.052 IO | | | | 2.41
9.500 0.00 0.41 0.049 IO | | | | 2.33
9.583 0.00 0.41 0.046 IO | | | | 2.24
9.667 0.00 0.41 0.043 IO | | | | 2.15
9.750 0.00 0.41 0.041 IO | | | | 2.07
9.833 0.00 0.41 0.038 IO | | | | 1.98
9.917 0.00 0.41 0.035 IO | | | | 1.89
10.000 0.00 0.41 0.032 IO | | | | 1.81
10.083 0.00 0.41 0.029 IO | | | | 1.72
10.167 0.00 0.41 0.027 IO | | | | 1.64
10.250 0.00 0.41 0.024 IO | | | | 1.55
10.333 0.00 0.41 0.021 IO | | | | 1.46
10.417 0.00 0.41 0.018 IO | | | | 1.38
10.500 0.00 0.41 0.015 IO | | | | 1.29
10.583 0.00 0.41 0.012 IO | | | | 1.20
10.667 0.00 0.41 0.010 IO | | | | 1.12
10.750 0.00 0.41 0.007 IO | | | | 0.78
10.833 0.00 0.41 0.004 IO | | | | 0.38
10.917 0.00 0.41 0.001 IO | | | | 0.02
11.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00 ****************************HYDROGRAPH DATA**************************** Number of intervals = 132
Time interval = 5.0 (Min.)
Maximum/Peak flow rate = 2.437 (CFS)
808
Total volume = 0.336 (Ac.Ft)
Status of hydrographs being held in storage
Stream 1 Stream 2 Stream 3 Stream 4 Stream 5
Peak (CFS) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Vol (Ac.Ft) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 *********************************************************************** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 809
FLOOD HYDROGRAPH ROUTING PROGRAM
Copyright (c) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 ‐ 2005
Study date: 07/24/24
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ JN 4113 FLOOD ROUTING
25 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Program License Serial Number 5016
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ********************* HYDROGRAPH INFORMATION ********************** From study/file name: 4113UH25Y24H.rte
****************************HYDROGRAPH DATA**************************** Number of intervals = 293
Time interval = 5.0 (Min.)
Maximum/Peak flow rate = 10.272 (CFS)
Total volume = 0.336 (Ac.Ft)
Status of hydrographs being held in storage
Stream 1 Stream 2 Stream 3 Stream 4 Stream 5
Peak (CFS) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Vol (Ac.Ft) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 *********************************************************************** ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 2.000 **** RETARDING BASIN ROUTING ****
______________________________________________________________________ User entry of depth‐outflow‐storage data
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Total number of inflow hydrograph intervals = 293
Hydrograph time unit = 5.000 (Min.)
Initial depth in storage basin = 0.00(Ft.)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Initial basin depth = 0.00 (Ft.)
Initial basin storage = 0.00 (Ac.Ft)
Initial basin outflow = 0.00 (CFS)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Depth vs. Storage and Depth vs. Discharge data:
Basin Depth Storage Outflow (S‐O*dt/2) (S+O*dt/2) (Ft.) (Ac.Ft) (CFS) (Ac.Ft) (Ac.Ft)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.010 0.001 0.410 ‐0.000 0.002
0.100 0.002 0.410 0.001 0.003
1.100 0.009 0.410 0.008 0.010
2.750 0.063 0.410 0.062 0.064
4.500 0.141 0.410 0.140 0.142
6.250 0.209 0.410 0.208 0.210
8.000 0.264 0.410 0.263 0.265
810
8.100 0.266 0.410 0.265 0.267
9.000 0.283 0.410 0.282 0.284
9.100 0.284 0.460 0.282 0.286
9.500 0.285 1.670 0.279 0.291
10.000 0.286 2.920 0.276 0.296
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Hydrograph Detention Basin Routing
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Graph values: 'I'= unit inflow; 'O'=outflow at time shown ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Time Inflow Outflow Storage Depth (Hours) (CFS) (CFS) (Ac.Ft) .0 2.6 5.14 7.70 10.27 (Ft.)
0.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00 811
3.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00 812
7.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00 813
11.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
15.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
15.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
15.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
15.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
15.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
15.417 0.09 0.05 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
15.500 0.57 0.37 0.001 |O | | | | 0.01
15.583 1.17 0.41 0.004 |O I | | | | 0.41 814
15.667 1.51 0.41 0.011 |O I | | | | 1.15
15.750 1.77 0.41 0.019 |O I | | | | 1.41
15.833 2.10 0.41 0.030 |O I | | | | 1.73
15.917 2.55 0.41 0.043 |O I| | | | 2.13
16.000 3.39 0.41 0.060 |O | I | | | 2.67
16.083 5.52 0.41 0.088 |O | |I | | 3.32
16.167 10.17 0.41 0.139 |O | | | I| 4.47
16.250 10.27 0.41 0.207 |O | | | I 6.20
16.333 5.24 0.41 0.258 |O | I | | 7.80
16.417 2.62 0.41 0.282 |O I | | | 8.94
16.500 1.33 2.44 0.286 | I O| | | | 9.81
16.583 0.34 0.41 0.282 |O | | | | 8.92
16.667 0.08 0.41 0.280 IO | | | | 8.85
16.750 0.02 0.41 0.278 IO | | | | 8.72
16.833 0.00 0.41 0.275 IO | | | | 8.58
16.917 0.00 0.41 0.272 IO | | | | 8.43
17.000 0.00 0.41 0.269 IO | | | | 8.28
17.083 0.00 0.41 0.267 IO | | | | 8.13
17.167 0.00 0.41 0.264 IO | | | | 7.99
17.250 0.00 0.41 0.261 IO | | | | 7.90
17.333 0.00 0.41 0.258 IO | | | | 7.81
17.417 0.00 0.41 0.255 IO | | | | 7.72
17.500 0.00 0.41 0.252 IO | | | | 7.63
17.583 0.00 0.41 0.250 IO | | | | 7.54
17.667 0.00 0.41 0.247 IO | | | | 7.45
17.750 0.00 0.41 0.244 IO | | | | 7.36
17.833 0.00 0.41 0.241 IO | | | | 7.27
17.917 0.00 0.41 0.238 IO | | | | 7.18
18.000 0.00 0.41 0.236 IO | | | | 7.09
18.083 0.00 0.41 0.233 IO | | | | 7.00
18.167 0.00 0.41 0.230 IO | | | | 6.92
18.250 0.00 0.41 0.227 IO | | | | 6.83
18.333 0.00 0.41 0.224 IO | | | | 6.74
18.417 0.00 0.41 0.221 IO | | | | 6.65
18.500 0.00 0.41 0.219 IO | | | | 6.56
18.583 0.00 0.41 0.216 IO | | | | 6.47
18.667 0.00 0.41 0.213 IO | | | | 6.38
18.750 0.00 0.41 0.210 IO | | | | 6.29
18.833 0.00 0.41 0.207 IO | | | | 6.21
18.917 0.00 0.41 0.205 IO | | | | 6.13
19.000 0.00 0.41 0.202 IO | | | | 6.06
19.083 0.00 0.41 0.199 IO | | | | 5.99
19.167 0.00 0.41 0.196 IO | | | | 5.92
19.250 0.00 0.41 0.193 IO | | | | 5.84
19.333 0.00 0.41 0.190 IO | | | | 5.77
19.417 0.00 0.41 0.188 IO | | | | 5.70
19.500 0.00 0.41 0.185 IO | | | | 5.63
19.583 0.00 0.41 0.182 IO | | | | 5.55
19.667 0.00 0.41 0.179 IO | | | | 5.48
19.750 0.00 0.41 0.176 IO | | | | 5.41 815
19.833 0.00 0.41 0.173 IO | | | | 5.34
19.917 0.00 0.41 0.171 IO | | | | 5.26
20.000 0.00 0.41 0.168 IO | | | | 5.19
20.083 0.00 0.41 0.165 IO | | | | 5.12
20.167 0.00 0.41 0.162 IO | | | | 5.05
20.250 0.00 0.41 0.159 IO | | | | 4.97
20.333 0.00 0.41 0.157 IO | | | | 4.90
20.417 0.00 0.41 0.154 IO | | | | 4.83
20.500 0.00 0.41 0.151 IO | | | | 4.75
20.583 0.00 0.41 0.148 IO | | | | 4.68
20.667 0.00 0.41 0.145 IO | | | | 4.61
20.750 0.00 0.41 0.142 IO | | | | 4.54
20.833 0.00 0.41 0.140 IO | | | | 4.47
20.917 0.00 0.41 0.137 IO | | | | 4.41
21.000 0.00 0.41 0.134 IO | | | | 4.34
21.083 0.00 0.41 0.131 IO | | | | 4.28
21.167 0.00 0.41 0.128 IO | | | | 4.22
21.250 0.00 0.41 0.125 IO | | | | 4.15
21.333 0.00 0.41 0.123 IO | | | | 4.09
21.417 0.00 0.41 0.120 IO | | | | 4.03
21.500 0.00 0.41 0.117 IO | | | | 3.96
21.583 0.00 0.41 0.114 IO | | | | 3.90
21.667 0.00 0.41 0.111 IO | | | | 3.84
21.750 0.00 0.41 0.109 IO | | | | 3.77
21.833 0.00 0.41 0.106 IO | | | | 3.71
21.917 0.00 0.41 0.103 IO | | | | 3.65
22.000 0.00 0.41 0.100 IO | | | | 3.58
22.083 0.00 0.41 0.097 IO | | | | 3.52
22.167 0.00 0.41 0.094 IO | | | | 3.46
22.250 0.00 0.41 0.092 IO | | | | 3.39
22.333 0.00 0.41 0.089 IO | | | | 3.33
22.417 0.00 0.41 0.086 IO | | | | 3.27
22.500 0.00 0.41 0.083 IO | | | | 3.20
22.583 0.00 0.41 0.080 IO | | | | 3.14
22.667 0.00 0.41 0.077 IO | | | | 3.08
22.750 0.00 0.41 0.075 IO | | | | 3.01
22.833 0.00 0.41 0.072 IO | | | | 2.95
22.917 0.00 0.41 0.069 IO | | | | 2.89
23.000 0.00 0.41 0.066 IO | | | | 2.82
23.083 0.00 0.41 0.063 IO | | | | 2.76
23.167 0.00 0.41 0.061 IO | | | | 2.68
23.250 0.00 0.41 0.058 IO | | | | 2.59
23.333 0.00 0.41 0.055 IO | | | | 2.50
23.417 0.00 0.41 0.052 IO | | | | 2.42
23.500 0.00 0.41 0.049 IO | | | | 2.33
23.583 0.00 0.41 0.046 IO | | | | 2.24
23.667 0.00 0.41 0.044 IO | | | | 2.16
23.750 0.00 0.41 0.041 IO | | | | 2.07
23.833 0.00 0.41 0.038 IO | | | | 1.99
23.917 0.00 0.41 0.035 IO | | | | 1.90 816
24.000 0.00 0.41 0.032 IO | | | | 1.81
24.083 0.00 0.41 0.030 IO | | | | 1.73
24.167 0.00 0.41 0.027 IO | | | | 1.64
24.250 0.00 0.41 0.024 IO | | | | 1.55
24.333 0.00 0.41 0.021 IO | | | | 1.47
24.417 0.00 0.41 0.018 IO | | | | 1.38
24.500 0.00 0.41 0.015 IO | | | | 1.30
24.583 0.00 0.41 0.013 IO | | | | 1.21
24.667 0.00 0.41 0.010 IO | | | | 1.12
24.750 0.00 0.41 0.007 IO | | | | 0.80
24.833 0.00 0.41 0.004 IO | | | | 0.40
24.917 0.00 0.41 0.001 IO | | | | 0.03
25.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00 ****************************HYDROGRAPH DATA**************************** Number of intervals = 300
Time interval = 5.0 (Min.)
Maximum/Peak flow rate = 2.437 (CFS)
Total volume = 0.336 (Ac.Ft)
Status of hydrographs being held in storage
Stream 1 Stream 2 Stream 3 Stream 4 Stream 5
Peak (CFS) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Vol (Ac.Ft) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 *********************************************************************** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 817
FLOOD HYDROGRAPH ROUTING PROGRAM
Copyright (c) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 ‐ 2005
Study date: 07/01/24
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ JN 4113 FLOOD ROUTING
100 YEAR 3 HOUR STORM
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Program License Serial Number 5016
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ********************* HYDROGRAPH INFORMATION ********************** From study/file name: 4113UH100Y3H.rte
****************************HYDROGRAPH DATA**************************** Number of intervals = 41
Time interval = 5.0 (Min.)
Maximum/Peak flow rate = 13.573 (CFS)
Total volume = 0.457 (Ac.Ft)
Status of hydrographs being held in storage
Stream 1 Stream 2 Stream 3 Stream 4 Stream 5
Peak (CFS) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Vol (Ac.Ft) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 *********************************************************************** ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 2.000 **** RETARDING BASIN ROUTING ****
______________________________________________________________________ User entry of depth‐outflow‐storage data
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Total number of inflow hydrograph intervals = 41
Hydrograph time unit = 5.000 (Min.)
Initial depth in storage basin = 0.00(Ft.)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Initial basin depth = 0.00 (Ft.)
Initial basin storage = 0.00 (Ac.Ft)
Initial basin outflow = 0.00 (CFS)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Depth vs. Storage and Depth vs. Discharge data:
Basin Depth Storage Outflow (S‐O*dt/2) (S+O*dt/2) (Ft.) (Ac.Ft) (CFS) (Ac.Ft) (Ac.Ft)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.010 0.001 0.410 ‐0.000 0.002
0.100 0.002 0.410 0.001 0.003
1.100 0.009 0.410 0.008 0.010
2.750 0.063 0.410 0.062 0.064
4.500 0.141 0.410 0.140 0.142
6.250 0.209 0.410 0.208 0.210
8.000 0.264 0.410 0.263 0.265
818
8.100 0.266 0.410 0.265 0.267
9.000 0.283 0.410 0.282 0.284
9.100 0.284 0.460 0.282 0.286
9.500 0.285 1.670 0.279 0.291
10.000 0.286 2.920 0.276 0.296
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Hydrograph Detention Basin Routing
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Graph values: 'I'= unit inflow; 'O'=outflow at time shown ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Time Inflow Outflow Storage Depth (Hours) (CFS) (CFS) (Ac.Ft) .0 3.4 6.79 10.18 13.57 (Ft.)
0.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.417 0.13 0.08 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.500 0.84 0.41 0.002 OI | | | | 0.09
1.583 1.73 0.41 0.008 O I | | | | 0.94
1.667 2.20 0.41 0.019 O I | | | | 1.39
1.750 2.55 0.41 0.032 O I | | | | 1.81
1.833 2.98 0.41 0.048 O I| | | | 2.30
1.917 3.57 0.41 0.068 O I | | | 2.86
2.000 4.66 0.41 0.094 O | I | | | 3.44
2.083 7.44 0.41 0.132 O | |I | | 4.31
2.167 13.50 0.41 0.202 O | | | I| 6.06
2.250 13.57 2.34 0.286 | O | | | I 9.77
2.333 7.02 11.25 0.296 | | I | O 14.93
2.417 3.62 0.41 0.279 O I | | | 8.76
2.500 1.86 2.91 0.286 | I O | | | | 9.99
2.583 0.49 0.41 0.283 OI | | | | 8.98
2.667 0.12 0.41 0.282 O | | | | 8.94
2.750 0.03 0.41 0.280 O | | | | 8.82
2.833 0.00 0.41 0.277 O | | | | 8.68
2.917 0.00 0.41 0.274 O | | | | 8.53
3.000 0.00 0.41 0.271 O | | | | 8.38
3.083 0.00 0.41 0.268 O | | | | 8.23 819
3.167 0.00 0.41 0.266 O | | | | 8.08
3.250 0.00 0.41 0.263 O | | | | 7.96
3.333 0.00 0.41 0.260 O | | | | 7.87
3.417 0.00 0.41 0.257 O | | | | 7.78
3.500 0.00 0.41 0.254 O | | | | 7.69
3.583 0.00 0.41 0.251 O | | | | 7.60
3.667 0.00 0.41 0.249 O | | | | 7.51
3.750 0.00 0.41 0.246 O | | | | 7.42
3.833 0.00 0.41 0.243 O | | | | 7.33
3.917 0.00 0.41 0.240 O | | | | 7.24
4.000 0.00 0.41 0.237 O | | | | 7.15
4.083 0.00 0.41 0.235 O | | | | 7.06
4.167 0.00 0.41 0.232 O | | | | 6.97
4.250 0.00 0.41 0.229 O | | | | 6.88
4.333 0.00 0.41 0.226 O | | | | 6.79
4.417 0.00 0.41 0.223 O | | | | 6.70
4.500 0.00 0.41 0.220 O | | | | 6.61
4.583 0.00 0.41 0.218 O | | | | 6.52
4.667 0.00 0.41 0.215 O | | | | 6.43
4.750 0.00 0.41 0.212 O | | | | 6.34
4.833 0.00 0.41 0.209 O | | | | 6.25
4.917 0.00 0.41 0.206 O | | | | 6.18
5.000 0.00 0.41 0.203 O | | | | 6.11
5.083 0.00 0.41 0.201 O | | | | 6.04
5.167 0.00 0.41 0.198 O | | | | 5.96
5.250 0.00 0.41 0.195 O | | | | 5.89
5.333 0.00 0.41 0.192 O | | | | 5.82
5.417 0.00 0.41 0.189 O | | | | 5.74
5.500 0.00 0.41 0.187 O | | | | 5.67
5.583 0.00 0.41 0.184 O | | | | 5.60
5.667 0.00 0.41 0.181 O | | | | 5.53
5.750 0.00 0.41 0.178 O | | | | 5.45
5.833 0.00 0.41 0.175 O | | | | 5.38
5.917 0.00 0.41 0.172 O | | | | 5.31
6.000 0.00 0.41 0.170 O | | | | 5.24
6.083 0.00 0.41 0.167 O | | | | 5.16
6.167 0.00 0.41 0.164 O | | | | 5.09
6.250 0.00 0.41 0.161 O | | | | 5.02
6.333 0.00 0.41 0.158 O | | | | 4.95
6.417 0.00 0.41 0.155 O | | | | 4.87
6.500 0.00 0.41 0.153 O | | | | 4.80
6.583 0.00 0.41 0.150 O | | | | 4.73
6.667 0.00 0.41 0.147 O | | | | 4.65
6.750 0.00 0.41 0.144 O | | | | 4.58
6.833 0.00 0.41 0.141 O | | | | 4.51
6.917 0.00 0.41 0.139 O | | | | 4.44
7.000 0.00 0.41 0.136 O | | | | 4.38
7.083 0.00 0.41 0.133 O | | | | 4.32
7.167 0.00 0.41 0.130 O | | | | 4.25
7.250 0.00 0.41 0.127 O | | | | 4.19 820
7.333 0.00 0.41 0.124 O | | | | 4.13
7.417 0.00 0.41 0.122 O | | | | 4.06
7.500 0.00 0.41 0.119 O | | | | 4.00
7.583 0.00 0.41 0.116 O | | | | 3.94
7.667 0.00 0.41 0.113 O | | | | 3.87
7.750 0.00 0.41 0.110 O | | | | 3.81
7.833 0.00 0.41 0.107 O | | | | 3.75
7.917 0.00 0.41 0.105 O | | | | 3.68
8.000 0.00 0.41 0.102 O | | | | 3.62
8.083 0.00 0.41 0.099 O | | | | 3.56
8.167 0.00 0.41 0.096 O | | | | 3.49
8.250 0.00 0.41 0.093 O | | | | 3.43
8.333 0.00 0.41 0.091 O | | | | 3.37
8.417 0.00 0.41 0.088 O | | | | 3.30
8.500 0.00 0.41 0.085 O | | | | 3.24
8.583 0.00 0.41 0.082 O | | | | 3.18
8.667 0.00 0.41 0.079 O | | | | 3.11
8.750 0.00 0.41 0.076 O | | | | 3.05
8.833 0.00 0.41 0.074 O | | | | 2.99
8.917 0.00 0.41 0.071 O | | | | 2.92
9.000 0.00 0.41 0.068 O | | | | 2.86
9.083 0.00 0.41 0.065 O | | | | 2.80
9.167 0.00 0.41 0.062 O | | | | 2.73
9.250 0.00 0.41 0.059 O | | | | 2.64
9.333 0.00 0.41 0.057 O | | | | 2.56
9.417 0.00 0.41 0.054 O | | | | 2.47
9.500 0.00 0.41 0.051 O | | | | 2.38
9.583 0.00 0.41 0.048 O | | | | 2.30
9.667 0.00 0.41 0.045 O | | | | 2.21
9.750 0.00 0.41 0.043 O | | | | 2.12
9.833 0.00 0.41 0.040 O | | | | 2.04
9.917 0.00 0.41 0.037 O | | | | 1.95
10.000 0.00 0.41 0.034 O | | | | 1.87
10.083 0.00 0.41 0.031 O | | | | 1.78
10.167 0.00 0.41 0.028 O | | | | 1.69
10.250 0.00 0.41 0.026 O | | | | 1.61
10.333 0.00 0.41 0.023 O | | | | 1.52
10.417 0.00 0.41 0.020 O | | | | 1.43
10.500 0.00 0.41 0.017 O | | | | 1.35
10.583 0.00 0.41 0.014 O | | | | 1.26
10.667 0.00 0.41 0.011 O | | | | 1.18
10.750 0.00 0.41 0.009 O | | | | 1.05
10.833 0.00 0.41 0.006 O | | | | 0.65
10.917 0.00 0.41 0.003 O | | | | 0.24
11.000 0.00 0.27 0.001 O | | | | 0.01
11.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00 ****************************HYDROGRAPH DATA**************************** Number of intervals = 133
Time interval = 5.0 (Min.)
821
Maximum/Peak flow rate = 11.254 (CFS)
Total volume = 0.457 (Ac.Ft)
Status of hydrographs being held in storage
Stream 1 Stream 2 Stream 3 Stream 4 Stream 5
Peak (CFS) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Vol (Ac.Ft) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 *********************************************************************** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 822
FLOOD HYDROGRAPH ROUTING PROGRAM
Copyright (c) CIVILCADD/CIVILDESIGN, 1989 ‐ 2005
Study date: 07/01/24
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ JN 4113 FLOOD ROUTING
100 YEAR 24 HOUR STORM
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Program License Serial Number 5016
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ********************* HYDROGRAPH INFORMATION ********************** From study/file name: 4113UH100Y24H.rte
****************************HYDROGRAPH DATA**************************** Number of intervals = 293
Time interval = 5.0 (Min.)
Maximum/Peak flow rate = 13.573 (CFS)
Total volume = 0.457 (Ac.Ft)
Status of hydrographs being held in storage
Stream 1 Stream 2 Stream 3 Stream 4 Stream 5
Peak (CFS) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Vol (Ac.Ft) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 *********************************************************************** ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Process from Point/Station 1.000 to Point/Station 2.000 **** RETARDING BASIN ROUTING ****
______________________________________________________________________ User entry of depth‐outflow‐storage data
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Total number of inflow hydrograph intervals = 293
Hydrograph time unit = 5.000 (Min.)
Initial depth in storage basin = 0.00(Ft.)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Initial basin depth = 0.00 (Ft.)
Initial basin storage = 0.00 (Ac.Ft)
Initial basin outflow = 0.00 (CFS)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Depth vs. Storage and Depth vs. Discharge data:
Basin Depth Storage Outflow (S‐O*dt/2) (S+O*dt/2) (Ft.) (Ac.Ft) (CFS) (Ac.Ft) (Ac.Ft)
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.010 0.001 0.410 ‐0.000 0.002
0.100 0.002 0.410 0.001 0.003
1.100 0.009 0.410 0.008 0.010
2.750 0.063 0.410 0.062 0.064
4.500 0.141 0.410 0.140 0.142
6.250 0.209 0.410 0.208 0.210
8.000 0.264 0.410 0.263 0.265
823
8.100 0.266 0.410 0.265 0.267
9.000 0.283 0.410 0.282 0.284
9.100 0.284 0.460 0.282 0.286
9.500 0.285 1.670 0.279 0.291
10.000 0.286 2.920 0.276 0.296
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ Hydrograph Detention Basin Routing
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Graph values: 'I'= unit inflow; 'O'=outflow at time shown ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Time Inflow Outflow Storage Depth (Hours) (CFS) (CFS) (Ac.Ft) .0 3.4 6.79 10.18 13.57 (Ft.)
0.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
0.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
1.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
2.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00 824
3.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
3.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
4.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
5.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
6.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00 825
7.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
7.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
8.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
9.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
10.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00 826
11.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
11.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
12.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
13.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.417 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.500 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.583 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.667 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.750 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.833 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
14.917 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
15.000 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
15.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
15.167 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
15.250 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
15.333 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
15.417 0.13 0.08 0.000 O | | | | 0.00
15.500 0.84 0.41 0.002 OI | | | | 0.09
15.583 1.73 0.41 0.008 O I | | | | 0.94
15.667 2.20 0.41 0.019 O I | | | | 1.39 827
15.750 2.55 0.41 0.032 O I | | | | 1.81
15.833 2.98 0.41 0.048 O I| | | | 2.30
15.917 3.57 0.41 0.068 O I | | | 2.86
16.000 4.66 0.41 0.094 O | I | | | 3.44
16.083 7.44 0.41 0.132 O | |I | | 4.31
16.167 13.50 0.41 0.202 O | | | I| 6.06
16.250 13.57 2.34 0.286 | O | | | I 9.77
16.333 7.02 11.25 0.296 | | I | O 14.93
16.417 3.62 0.41 0.279 O I | | | 8.76
16.500 1.86 2.91 0.286 | I O | | | | 9.99
16.583 0.49 0.41 0.283 OI | | | | 8.98
16.667 0.12 0.41 0.282 O | | | | 8.94
16.750 0.03 0.41 0.280 O | | | | 8.82
16.833 0.00 0.41 0.277 O | | | | 8.68
16.917 0.00 0.41 0.274 O | | | | 8.53
17.000 0.00 0.41 0.271 O | | | | 8.38
17.083 0.00 0.41 0.268 O | | | | 8.23
17.167 0.00 0.41 0.266 O | | | | 8.08
17.250 0.00 0.41 0.263 O | | | | 7.96
17.333 0.00 0.41 0.260 O | | | | 7.87
17.417 0.00 0.41 0.257 O | | | | 7.78
17.500 0.00 0.41 0.254 O | | | | 7.69
17.583 0.00 0.41 0.252 O | | | | 7.60
17.667 0.00 0.41 0.249 O | | | | 7.51
17.750 0.00 0.41 0.246 O | | | | 7.42
17.833 0.00 0.41 0.243 O | | | | 7.33
17.917 0.00 0.41 0.240 O | | | | 7.24
18.000 0.00 0.41 0.237 O | | | | 7.16
18.083 0.00 0.41 0.235 O | | | | 7.07
18.167 0.00 0.41 0.232 O | | | | 6.98
18.250 0.00 0.41 0.229 O | | | | 6.89
18.333 0.00 0.41 0.226 O | | | | 6.80
18.417 0.00 0.41 0.223 O | | | | 6.71
18.500 0.00 0.41 0.221 O | | | | 6.62
18.583 0.00 0.41 0.218 O | | | | 6.53
18.667 0.00 0.41 0.215 O | | | | 6.44
18.750 0.00 0.41 0.212 O | | | | 6.35
18.833 0.00 0.41 0.209 O | | | | 6.26
18.917 0.00 0.41 0.206 O | | | | 6.18
19.000 0.00 0.41 0.204 O | | | | 6.11
19.083 0.00 0.41 0.201 O | | | | 6.04
19.167 0.00 0.41 0.198 O | | | | 5.97
19.250 0.00 0.41 0.195 O | | | | 5.89
19.333 0.00 0.41 0.192 O | | | | 5.82
19.417 0.00 0.41 0.189 O | | | | 5.75
19.500 0.00 0.41 0.187 O | | | | 5.68
19.583 0.00 0.41 0.184 O | | | | 5.60
19.667 0.00 0.41 0.181 O | | | | 5.53
19.750 0.00 0.41 0.178 O | | | | 5.46
19.833 0.00 0.41 0.175 O | | | | 5.38 828
19.917 0.00 0.41 0.173 O | | | | 5.31
20.000 0.00 0.41 0.170 O | | | | 5.24
20.083 0.00 0.41 0.167 O | | | | 5.17
20.167 0.00 0.41 0.164 O | | | | 5.09
20.250 0.00 0.41 0.161 O | | | | 5.02
20.333 0.00 0.41 0.158 O | | | | 4.95
20.417 0.00 0.41 0.156 O | | | | 4.88
20.500 0.00 0.41 0.153 O | | | | 4.80
20.583 0.00 0.41 0.150 O | | | | 4.73
20.667 0.00 0.41 0.147 O | | | | 4.66
20.750 0.00 0.41 0.144 O | | | | 4.59
20.833 0.00 0.41 0.142 O | | | | 4.51
20.917 0.00 0.41 0.139 O | | | | 4.45
21.000 0.00 0.41 0.136 O | | | | 4.38
21.083 0.00 0.41 0.133 O | | | | 4.32
21.167 0.00 0.41 0.130 O | | | | 4.26
21.250 0.00 0.41 0.127 O | | | | 4.19
21.333 0.00 0.41 0.125 O | | | | 4.13
21.417 0.00 0.41 0.122 O | | | | 4.07
21.500 0.00 0.41 0.119 O | | | | 4.00
21.583 0.00 0.41 0.116 O | | | | 3.94
21.667 0.00 0.41 0.113 O | | | | 3.88
21.750 0.00 0.41 0.110 O | | | | 3.81
21.833 0.00 0.41 0.108 O | | | | 3.75
21.917 0.00 0.41 0.105 O | | | | 3.69
22.000 0.00 0.41 0.102 O | | | | 3.62
22.083 0.00 0.41 0.099 O | | | | 3.56
22.167 0.00 0.41 0.096 O | | | | 3.50
22.250 0.00 0.41 0.094 O | | | | 3.43
22.333 0.00 0.41 0.091 O | | | | 3.37
22.417 0.00 0.41 0.088 O | | | | 3.31
22.500 0.00 0.41 0.085 O | | | | 3.24
22.583 0.00 0.41 0.082 O | | | | 3.18
22.667 0.00 0.41 0.079 O | | | | 3.12
22.750 0.00 0.41 0.077 O | | | | 3.05
22.833 0.00 0.41 0.074 O | | | | 2.99
22.917 0.00 0.41 0.071 O | | | | 2.93
23.000 0.00 0.41 0.068 O | | | | 2.86
23.083 0.00 0.41 0.065 O | | | | 2.80
23.167 0.00 0.41 0.062 O | | | | 2.73
23.250 0.00 0.41 0.060 O | | | | 2.65
23.333 0.00 0.41 0.057 O | | | | 2.56
23.417 0.00 0.41 0.054 O | | | | 2.47
23.500 0.00 0.41 0.051 O | | | | 2.39
23.583 0.00 0.41 0.048 O | | | | 2.30
23.667 0.00 0.41 0.046 O | | | | 2.22
23.750 0.00 0.41 0.043 O | | | | 2.13
23.833 0.00 0.41 0.040 O | | | | 2.04
23.917 0.00 0.41 0.037 O | | | | 1.96
24.000 0.00 0.41 0.034 O | | | | 1.87 829
24.083 0.00 0.41 0.031 O | | | | 1.78
24.167 0.00 0.41 0.029 O | | | | 1.70
24.250 0.00 0.41 0.026 O | | | | 1.61
24.333 0.00 0.41 0.023 O | | | | 1.53
24.417 0.00 0.41 0.020 O | | | | 1.44
24.500 0.00 0.41 0.017 O | | | | 1.35
24.583 0.00 0.41 0.014 O | | | | 1.27
24.667 0.00 0.41 0.012 O | | | | 1.18
24.750 0.00 0.41 0.009 O | | | | 1.07
24.833 0.00 0.41 0.006 O | | | | 0.67
24.917 0.00 0.41 0.003 O | | | | 0.27
25.000 0.00 0.30 0.001 O | | | | 0.01
25.083 0.00 0.00 0.000 O | | | | 0.00 ****************************HYDROGRAPH DATA**************************** Number of intervals = 301
Time interval = 5.0 (Min.)
Maximum/Peak flow rate = 11.254 (CFS)
Total volume = 0.458 (Ac.Ft)
Status of hydrographs being held in storage
Stream 1 Stream 2 Stream 3 Stream 4 Stream 5
Peak (CFS) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Vol (Ac.Ft) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 *********************************************************************** ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐ 830
Appendix F
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT APPENDICES
Worksheet H: Factor of Safety and Design Infiltration Rate and Worksheet Factor Category Factor Description
Assigned
Weight (w)
Factor
Value (v)
Product (p)
p = w x v
A Suitability
As
sessment
Soil assessment methods 0.25 1 0.25
Predominant soil texture 0.25 1 0.25
Site soil variability 0.25 1 0.25
Depth to groundwater / impervious
layer 0.25
1 0.25
Suitability Assessment Safety Factor, SA = Lp 1.00
B De
sign
Tributary area size 0.25 2 0.50
Level of pretreatment/ expected
sediment loads 0.25
1 0.25
Redundancy 0.25 3 0.75
Compaction during construction 0.25 1 0.25
Design Safety Factor, SB = Lp 1.75
Combined Safety Factor, STOT= SA x SB
1.75; USE 2.0
Measured Infiltration Rate, inch/hr, KM
(corrected for test-specific bias)
25.6 (lowest tested rate)
Design Infiltration Rate, in/hr, KDESIGN = STOT × KM Use 12.8 Supporting Data
Briefly describe infiltration test and provide reference to test forms:
See Section 6.4 of the project WQMP for project Soil Infiltration Testing by Norcal Engineering, Project No. 12343-05, dated 10/6/2017. Two locations were tested within the limits of the proposed underground infiltration system and the lowest value is to be used in the design of proposed infiltration BMPs.
Note: The minimum combined adjustment factor shall not be less than 2.0 and the maximum combined adjustment factor shall not exceed 9.0.
VII-35 May 19, 2011
876
877
878
APPENDIX F
CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
879
March 2022
CULTURAL RESOURCES A SSESSMENT
HILTON INDUST RIAL FACILITY BUSINESS PARK PROJECT
CITY OF FONTANA
SAN BERNARDINO COUNT Y, CALIFORNIA
880
March 2022
CULTURAL RESOURCES A SSESSMENT
HILTON INDUSTRIAL FA CILITY BUSINESS PARK PROJECT
CITY OF FONTANA
SAN BERNARDINO COUNT Y, CALI FORNIA
Prepared for:
Jon Dille
Associate Planner
City of Fontana
Community Development Department
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana, California 92335
Prepared by:
Riordan Goodwin, RA
LSA Associates, Inc.
1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 200
Riverside, California 92507
(951) 781-9310
LSA Project No. CFN2005.06
National Archaeological Database Information:
Type of Study: Reconnaissance Survey
Sites Recorded: None
USGS 7.5' Quadrangle: Fontana, California
Acreage: ~4 acres
Keywords: Phase I, negative results, no monitoring recommended. 881
C ULTURAL RESOU RCES ASSESSMENT
M ARCH 2022
H ILTON I NDUSTRIAL F ACILITY B USINESS P ARK P ROJECT
F ONTANA , C ALIFORNIA
R:\CFN2005.06_Hilton Warehouse\Technical Studies\Cultural\Report\Hilton Ind Fac Biz Pk CRA.docx (03/17/22) i
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
LSA was retained by the City of Fontana to conduct a cultural resources assessment for the proposed Hilton Industrial Facility Business Park Project in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. This cultural resources assessment was completed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
A cultural resources records search, additional research, and a field survey were conducted for the project area. No cultural resources are documented within the project parcel, and none were identified by the survey. No prehistoric resources were documented within a mile, and sensitivity for in situ undocumented subsurface resources is low. Therefore, no further investigation or archaeological monitoring is recommended.
In the event previously undocumented archaeological resources are identified during earthmoving activities, further work in the area should be halted until the nature and significance of the find can be assessed by a qualified archaeologist.
If human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to State Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The MLD recommendations may include scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials, preservation of Native American human remains and associated items in place, relinquishment of Native American human remains and associated items to the descendants for treatment, or any other culturally appropriate treatment.
882
C ULTURAL RESOU RCES ASSESSMENT
M ARCH 2022
H ILTON I NDUSTRIAL F ACILITY B USINESS P ARK P ROJECT
F ONTANA , C ALIFORNIA
R:\CFN2005.06_Hilton Warehouse\Technical Studies\Cultural\Report\Hilton Ind Fac Biz Pk CRA.docx (03/17/22) ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY .......................................................................................... I TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... II Figure ............................................................................................................................................. ii Table .............................................................................................................................................. ii Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 NATURAL SETTING ...................................................................................................... 1 Climate and Watershed ................................................................................................................. 1 Biology ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Geology ......................................................................................................................................... 1 CULTURAL SETTING ..................................................................................................... 3 Prehistory ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Ethnography .................................................................................................................................. 3 History ........................................................................................................................................... 5 METHODS ................................................................................................................... 6 Records Search .............................................................................................................................. 6 Additional Research ...................................................................................................................... 6 Field Survey ................................................................................................................................... 6 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... 6 Records Search .............................................................................................................................. 6 Additional Research ...................................................................................................................... 7 Field Survey ................................................................................................................................... 7 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................... 8 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 9
Figure
Figure 1: Project Regional and Project Location .................................................................................... 2
Table
Table A: Cultural Resources Within 1 Mile ............................................................................................. 7
Appendix
A: Records Search Bibliography
883
C ULTURAL RESOU RCES ASSESSMENT
M ARCH 2022
H ILTON I NDUSTRIAL F ACILITY B USINESS P ARK P ROJECT
F ONTANA , C ALIFORNIA
R:\CFN2005.06_Hilton Warehouse\Technical Studies\Cultural\Report\Hilton Ind Fac Biz Pk CRA.docx (03/17/22) 1
INTRODUCTION
LSA was retained by the City of Fontana to conduct a cultural resources assessment for the proposed Hilton Industrial Facility Business Park Project in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. This assessment was completed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Chapter 2.6, Section 21083.2, and California Code of Regulations Title 14, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15064.5. The research and field surveys were conducted to determine whether the proposed project could adversely affect any resources considered historical resources per CEQA. The project area (Assessor’s Parcel Number 1110-151-03) is located on the north side of Hilton Drive between Hemlock Avenue and Redwood Avenue. The project is depicted on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Fontana, California topographic quadrangle map in Township 1 South, Range 6 West in Section 2, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian (USGS 1980; Figure 1). The project area is a currently vacant 4-acre lot. The proposed project is an industrial/business park with associated parking.
NATURAL SETTING
Climate and Watershed
The project region is characterized by a temperate climate, with dry, hot summers and moderate winters. Rainfall ranges from 12 to 16 inches annually (Beck and Haase 1974). Precipitation usually occurs in the form of winter rain, with warm monsoonal showers in summer. The project area is approximately 1.5 miles east of the former course of East Etiwanda Creek (prior to channelization), which drains south.
Biology
At an average elevation of approximately 1,260 feet, the project is within the Lower Sonoran Life Zone of California (Schoenherr 1992), which ranges from below sea level to 3,500 feet in elevation.
Species such as datura, foxtail brome, mustard, along with xeric grasses were noted on the property.
Extensive fauna are known locally, including many endemic species of reptiles, birds, and insects.
Geology
The project area is located at the northern end of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province, a 900-mile-long northwest-southeast trending structural block that extends from the Transverse Ranges to the tip of Baja California and includes the Los Angeles Basin (California Geological Survey 2002; Norris and Webb 1976). The province is approximately 225 miles wide, extending from the Colorado Desert in the east, across the continental shelf to the Southern Channel Islands (Santa Barbara, San Nicolas, Santa Catalina, and San Clemente) in the west (Sharp 1976). This region is characterized by a series of mountain ranges separated by northwest-trending valleys subparallel to faults branching from the San Andreas Fault. The geology of this province is similar to that of the Sierra Nevada, with numerous rock outcroppings useful to the Native Americans for resource milling, shelter, and ceremonial art.
884
LEGEND
Project Location
SOURCE: USGS 7.5' Quad - Fontana (1980), Guasti (1981), Cucamonga Peak (1988), Devore (1988), CA I:\CFN2005.06\GIS\MXD\ProjLoc_USGS.mxd (1/4/2022)
FIGURE 1
Hilton Logistics Business Park
Regional and Project Location
0 1000 2000
FEET
San
Bernardino
County
Los
Angeles
County
Riverside
CountyÃÃ142
ÃÃ138
ÃÃ18
ÃÃ173
ÃÃ71
ÃÃ210
ÃÃ91
ÃÃ60
Project Location
§¨¦
15 §¨¦
215
§¨¦
10 Project Vicinity
885
C ULTURAL RESOU RCES ASSESSMENT
M ARCH 2022
H ILTON I NDUSTRIAL F ACILITY B USINESS P ARK P ROJECT
F ONTANA , C ALIFORNIA
R:\CFN2005.06_Hilton Warehouse\Technical Studies\Cultural\Report\Hilton Ind Fac Biz Pk CRA.docx (03/17/22) 3
CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistory
Chronologies of prehistoric cultural change in Southern California have been attempted numerous times, and several are reviewed in Moratto (2004). No single description is universally accepted as the various chronologies are based primarily on material developments identified by researchers familiar with sites in a particular region and variation exists essentially due to the differences in those items found at the sites. Small differences occur over time and space, which combine to form patterns that are variously interpreted.
Currently, two primary regional culture chronology syntheses are commonly referenced in the archaeological literature. The first, Wallace (1955), describes four cultural horizons or time periods:
Horizon I – Early Man (9000–6000 BC), Horizon II – Milling Stone Assemblages (6000–3000 BC), Horizon III – Intermediate Cultures (3000 BC–AD 500), and Horizon IV – Late Prehistoric Cultures (AD 500–historic contact). This chronology was refined (Wallace 1978) using absolute chronological dates obtained after 1955.
The second cultural chronology (Warren 1968) is based broadly on Southern California prehistoric cultures and was also revised (Warren 1984; Warren and Crabtree 1986). Warren’s (1984) chronology includes five periods in prehistory: Lake Mojave (7000–5000 BC), Pinto (5000–2000 BC), Gypsum (2000 BC–AD 500), Saratoga Springs (AD 500–1200), and Protohistoric (AD 1200–historic contact). Changes in settlement pattern and subsistence focus are viewed as cultural adaptations to a changing environment, which begins with gradual environmental warming in the late Pleistocene, continues with the desiccation of the desert lakes, followed by a brief return to pluvial conditions, and concludes with a general warming and drying trend, with periodic reversals that continue to the present (Warren and Crabtree 1986).
Ethnography
The project area is near the intersection of the traditional cultural territories of the Cahuilla, Gabrielino, and Serrano (Kroeber 1925; Heizer 1968). Tribal territories were somewhat fluid and changed over time. The first written accounts of these Southern California tribes are attributed to the mission fathers, and later documentation was by others as indicated below.
Cahuilla
The territory of the Cahuilla ranged from the San Bernardino Mountains south to Borrego Springs and the Chocolate Mountains, from Orocopia Mountain to the east, to the San Jacinto Plain and Palomar Mountain to the west (Bean 1978). Cahuilla territory lies within the geographic center of Southern California and encompassed diverse environments ranging from inland river valleys and foothills to mountains and desert (Bean and Shipek 1978).
Cahuilla villages, generally located near water sources within canyons or near alluvial fans, comprised groups of related individuals, generally from a single lineage, and the territory around the village was owned by the villagers (Bean 1978). Like other Native American groups in Southern 886
C ULTURAL RESOU RCES ASSESSMENT
M ARCH 2022
H ILTON I NDUSTRIAL F ACILITY B USINESS P ARK P ROJECT
F ONTANA , C ALIFORNIA
R:\CFN2005.06_Hilton Warehouse\Technical Studies\Cultural\Report\Hilton Ind Fac Biz Pk CRA.docx (03/17/22) 4 California, the Cahuilla were semi-nomadic peoples leaving their villages and utilizing temporary campsites to exploit seasonably available plant and animal resources (James 1960).
Cahuilla subsistence was based primarily on acorns, honey mesquite, screw beans, piñon nuts, and cactus fruit, supplemented by a variety of wild fruits and berries, tubers, roots, and greens (Kroeber 1925; Heizer and Elsasser 1980). Hunting deer, rabbit, antelope, bighorn sheep, reptiles, small rodents, quail, doves, ducks, and reptiles by means of bows, throwing sticks, traps, and communal drives is documented (James 1960).
The Cahuilla were documented by Barrows (1900), Hooper (1920), and Strong (1929) among others.
Gabrielino
The territory of the Gabrielino included portions of Los Angeles, Orange, and San Bernardino Counties during ethnohistoric times, and also extended inland into northwestern Riverside County (Kroeber 1925; Heizer 1968). It encompassed an extremely diverse environment that included coastal beaches, lagoons and marshes, inland river valleys, foothills and mountains (Bean and Shipek 1978).
The Gabrielino caught and collected seasonally available food resources, and led a semi-sedentary lifestyle, living in permanent communities along inland watercourses and coastal estuaries.
Individuals from these villages took advantage of the varied resources available. Seasonally, as foods became available, native groups moved to temporary camps to collect plant foods such as acorns, buckwheat, chía, berries, and fruits, and to conduct communal rabbit and deer hunts. They also established seasonal camps along the coast and near bays and estuaries to gather shellfish and hunt waterfowl (Hudson 1971).
The Gabrielino lived in small communities, which were the focus of family life. Patrilineally linked, extended families occupied each village (Kroeber 1925; Bean and Smith 1978a). Both clans and villages were apparently exogamous, marrying individuals from outside the clan or village (Heizer 1968). Gabrielino villages were politically independent and were administered by a chief, who inherited his position from his father. Shamans guided religious and medical activities, while group hunting or fishing was supervised by individual male specialists (Bean and Smith 1978a).
The nearest historically known Native American community was the Gabrielino community of Horuuvunga (also known to the Serrano as Jurupet and described to Alfred Kroeber as Hurumpa) located approximately 7 miles south of the project area somewhere in the Jurupa Valley (Kroeber 1925; Kirkman 1938; McCawley 1996).
The Gabrielino were described by Johnston (1962), Blackburn (1962–1963), Hudson (1971), and others.
Serrano
The Serrano lived in the area generally north of Cahuilla territory (western Riverside County), occupying much of present-day San Bernardino County and northeastern Los Angeles County, but 887
C ULTURAL RESOU RCES ASSESSMENT
M ARCH 2022
H ILTON I NDUSTRIAL F ACILITY B USINESS P ARK P ROJECT
F ONTANA , C ALIFORNIA
R:\CFN2005.06_Hilton Warehouse\Technical Studies\Cultural\Report\Hilton Ind Fac Biz Pk CRA.docx (03/17/22) 5 there is some overlap in the ancestral areas. The term Serrano is Spanish for “mountaineer” or “highlander” and is derived from sierra, meaning “mountain range” and was given to people who inhabited the areas of the San Bernardino Mountains that had no associated mission (Bean and Smith 1978b). The Serrano culture group actually incorporates two divisions, a mountain division (referred to as the Mountain Serrano) and a desert division, referred to as the Desert Serrano (Sutton and Earle 2017).
The Serrano were hunter-gatherers who exploited whatever flora was available in the area they happened to be, generally it was acorns, pinion nuts, honey, mesquite, yucca, and cactus fruits, in addition to various seeds, bulbs, and roots. Plants were consumed both raw and cooked. Food processing involved the use of manos, metates, mortars, and pestles. Antelope, deer, mountain sheep, rabbits, and rodents were hunted and captured, and the most common hunting implements were the bow and arrow, throwing stick, traps, snares, and deadfalls. Meat was prepared in earth ovens, by boiling in watertight baskets, or by parching (Bean and Smith 1978b).
The Serrano had a patrilineal society composed of clans and families linked by both ancestry and ceremony, and most lived in small communities near reliable sources of water (springs, perennial seeps, streams, and small lakes) (Benedict 1924). The basic settlement unit of the Serrano was a village with a number of small satellite resource-gathering camps.
The Serrano were described by Benedict (1924), Bright (1975), Strong (1929), and others.
History
In California, the historic era is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish Period (1769 to 1821), the Mexican Period (1821 to 1848), and the American Period (1848 to present). As there were no resources within the project area, the historic context will focus on the County and the local community.
San Bernardino County
San Bernardino County was created in 1853 from portions of Los Angeles and San Diego Counties due to mineral wealth, and the City of San Bernardino was incorporated as the County Seat the following year. Gold was discovered in Holcomb and Bear Valleys in the San Bernardino Mountains in 1860, and placer mining began in Lytle Creek. Silver was mined at Ivanpah in 1870 and the silver mines of the Calico district were developed in the 1880s. Borax was first discovered in 1862 in the Searles Dry Lake area near Trona (Hoover et al. 1990). Agriculture ultimately replaced mining as the County’s economic base, with thousands of acres under cultivation by the beginning of World War I (McGroarty 1914).
Fontana
The area that would later become Fontana was part of a land grant to Don Antonio Maria Lugo from the Spanish Governor of California (Pio Pico) in 1813. Lugo’s sons sold a portion of the land (including part of what is now Fontana) to a group of Mormon settlers in 1851 (Richards 1966), and the Semi-Tropical Land & Water Company subsequently acquired the Fontana portion of the Rancho and laid out a townsite in 1887 (Gudde 1998). In the early 1900s, the Fontana Development 888
C ULTURAL RESOU RCES ASSESSMENT
M ARCH 2022
H ILTON I NDUSTRIAL F ACILITY B USINESS P ARK P ROJECT
F ONTANA , C ALIFORNIA
R:\CFN2005.06_Hilton Warehouse\Technical Studies\Cultural\Report\Hilton Ind Fac Biz Pk CRA.docx (03/17/22) 6 Company acquired the land and established a community called Rosena, changed to Fontana in 1913 (Gudde 1998). Fontana was selected as the site for the Kaiser Company’s steel mill in 1942 and was incorporated 10 years later with a population of 13,695 as Southern California’s leading producer of steel and related products (Goodwin 2003). The steel industry dominated the City’s economy until the late 1970s, when Kaiser Steel began to reduce production and manpower, and the mill was closed in 1983 (Goodwin 2003). The plate steel and rolling mill plant was subsequently acquired by California Steel Company, which continues to produce steel products.
METHODS
Records Search
On February 23, 2022, the cultural resources records search was completed for the project area by the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) located at California State University, Fullerton. It included a review of all recorded historic and prehistoric archaeological sites within 1 mile of the project, as well as a review of known cultural resource reports. Appendix A contains the records search bibliography.
Additional Research
In January 2022, Senior Cultural Resources Manager/Archaeologist Riordan Goodwin reviewed the Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) along with LSA project files, online historic period maps, and aerial photographs.
Field Survey
On January 13, 2022, Mr. Goodwin surveyed the project area by walking transects spaced approximately 10 meters apart, with particular attention given to exposed areas and rodent dirt apron for cultural residues.
RESULTS
Records Search
Data from the SCCIC indicate there have been 23 cultural resource studies previously conducted within 1 mile of the proposed project, three of which included the entirety of the project area (Swope and McDonald 1985; Alexandrowicz et al. 1992; Tang et al. 2013). Although no cultural resources are documented within the project area, 21 built environment resources are recorded within 1 mile (Table A). The nearest (36-020310, a motel property) is approximately 100 feet south of the project. Only one of the resources is listed in the BERD (36-015392). No prehistoric resources are documented within a mile.
889
C ULTURAL RESOU RCES ASSESSMENT
M ARCH 2022
H ILTON I NDUSTRIAL F ACILITY B USINESS P ARK P ROJECT
F ONTANA , C ALIFORNIA
R:\CFN2005.06_Hilton Warehouse\Technical Studies\Cultural\Report\Hilton Ind Fac Biz Pk CRA.docx (03/17/22) 7 Table A: Cultural Resources Within 1 Mile
Primary # Trinomial # Site Description
Status
Codes
36-002910 CA-SBR-0002910/H Historic period road (National Old Trails Highway/Route 66) — 36-012239 Historic period bridge (both prehistoric and historic elements) site — 36-013921 CA-SBR-012735/H 8396 Cherry Avenue (c. 1951 residence) — 36-015392 8631 Sierra Avenue (historic period residence) 6Y 36-015497 Base Line Road —
36-020137 CA-SBR-015904/H Historic period railroad alignment (Pacific Electric/Southern Pacific) —
36-020309 14718 Foothill Blvd. (c. 1943 residence) —
36-020310 14888 Foothill Blvd. (c. 1944 Redwing Motel) — 36-020311 14127–14129 Foothill Blvd. & 8155 Banana Ave. (c. 1944 residential/commercial building) —
36-020312 14293 Foothill Blvd. (c. 1944 residence) —
36-021695 8566 Cherry Avenue (c. 1927 residence) —
36-021696 8657 Cherry Avenue (c. 1924 residence) —
36-024084 CA-SBR-015269/H Historic period road (Cherry Avenue) — 36-024087 CA-SBR-015272/H Historic period road (Beech Avenue) — 36-024088 CA-SBR-015273H Historic period road (Oak Avenue) — 36-024621 CA-SBR-015662H Historic period road (Sultana Avenue) — 36-024622 CA-SBR-015663H Historic period road (Redwood Avenue) — 36-024623 CA-SBR-015664H Historic period road (Lime Avenue?) — 36-024624 CA-SBR-015665H Historic period road (unnamed road) — 36-024625 CA-SBR-015666H National Old Trails Highway/Route 66 — 36-024698 CA-SBR-015739H Historic period road (Hemlock Avenue) — 36-029538 Historic period water conveyance system (West Fontana Flood Control Channel) —
Additional Research
Online research revealed that with the possible exception of the concrete slab/ramp (constructed sometime after 1966 - see below), there were never any buildings or structures within the project area during the historic period. However, a segment of a eucalyptus windrow transected the northern portion of the project area from the late 1930s into the mid-2000s (HistoricAerials.com 2021).
Field Survey
Mr. Goodwin conducted the pedestrian survey of the entire project area utilizing transects spaced approximately 10 meters apart. Visibility was excellent, with only approximately 10 percent of the ground surface obscured by xeric vegetation. Soils are rocky alluvium with pervasive concrete and 890
C ULTURAL RESOU RCES ASSESSMENT
M ARCH 2022
H ILTON I NDUSTRIAL F ACILITY B USINESS P ARK P ROJECT
F ONTANA , C ALIFORNIA
R:\CFN2005.06_Hilton Warehouse\Technical Studies\Cultural\Report\Hilton Ind Fac Biz Pk CRA.docx (03/17/22) 8 fine (small) macadam fragments. A temporally ambiguous concrete slab/ramp along with imported gravel (apparently a driveway/parking area) was noted in the southwestern quarter of the property, and a remnant of a segment of a eucalyptus windrow (a row of stumps) was noted transecting the northern portion of the project. Trace modern refuse was noted throughout the site. No cultural resources were identified.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A cultural resources records search, additional research, and a field survey were conducted for the project area. No cultural resources are documented within the project parcel and none was identified by the survey. No prehistoric resources were documented within a mile, and sensitivity for in situ undocumented subsurface resources is low. Therefore, no further investigation or archaeological monitoring is recommended.
In the event previously undocumented archaeological resources are identified during earthmoving activities, further work in the area should be halted until the nature and significance of the find can be assessed by a qualified archaeologist.
In the event human remains are encountered, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to State Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify an MLD. With the permission of the landowner or his/her authorized representative, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The MLD recommendations may include scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials, preservation of Native American human remains and associated items in place, relinquishment of Native American human remains and associated items to the descendants for treatment, or any other culturally appropriate treatment.
891
C ULTURAL RESOU RCES ASSESSMENT
M ARCH 2022
H ILTON I NDUSTRIAL F ACILITY B USINESS P ARK P ROJECT
F ONTANA , C ALIFORNIA
R:\CFN2005.06_Hilton Warehouse\Technical Studies\Cultural\Report\Hilton Ind Fac Biz Pk CRA.docx (03/17/22) 9
REFERENCES
Alexandrowicz, J. Steven, Anne Q. Duffield-Stoll, Jeanette A. Mckenna, Susan R. Alexandrowicz, Arthur A. Kuhner, and Eric Scott
1992 Cultural and Paleontological Resources Investigations Within the North Fontana Infrastructure Area, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. Archaeological Consulting Services.
Barrows, David Prescott
1900 The Ethno-botany of the Coahilla [sic] Indians of Southern California. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bean, Lowell John
1978 Cahuilla. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, pp. 575–587. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, W.C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Bean, Lowell John, and Charles R. Smith
1978a Gabrielino. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, pp. 538–549. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, W.C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1978b Serrano. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, pp. 570–574. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, W.C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Bean, Lowell John, and Florence C. Shipek
1978 Luiseño. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, pp. 550–563. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, W.C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Beck, Warren A., and Ynez D. Haase
1974 Historical Atlas of California. Oklahoma City: University of Oklahoma Press.
Benedict, Ruth F.
1924 A Brief Sketch of Serrano Culture. American Anthropologist 26 (3).
Betts, William F.
2014 Tracking the Trackless Trolley: An Archaeological Examination of the Lone Pine Canyon Trolley.
Blackburn, Thomas C.
1962–1963 Ethnohistoric Descriptions of Gabrielino Material Culture. Annual Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey 5: 1–50.
Bright, William
1975 Two Notes on Takic Classification: Paper read at the Third Annual Uto-Aztecan Conference, Flagstaff, June 19–20, 1975. (Copy, Manuscript No. 76–66 in National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington.) 892
C ULTURAL RESOU RCES ASSESSMENT
M ARCH 2022
H ILTON I NDUSTRIAL F ACILITY B USINESS P ARK P ROJECT
F ONTANA , C ALIFORNIA
R:\CFN2005.06_Hilton Warehouse\Technical Studies\Cultural\Report\Hilton Ind Fac Biz Pk CRA.docx (03/17/22) 10 California Geological Survey
2002 California Geomorphic Provinces. California Geologic Survey Note 36. California Department of Conservation.
Goodwin, Riordan
2003 Cultural and Paleontological Resources Assessment, J.W. Mitchell Specific Plan, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. Unpublished report on file at the AIC.
Gudde, Erwin G.
1998 California Place Names: The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names. Fourth edition, revised and enlarged by William Bright. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Harley, R. Bruce
1988 Rev. Juan Caballeria: Historian or Storyteller? Rethinking the 1810 Dumetz Expedition. San Bernardino County Museum Quarterly 35(2), 42 p.
Harrington, John Peabody
1913 Ethnographic Notes of John Peabody Harrington, p. 12.
Heizer, Robert F.
1968 The Indians of Los Angeles County. Hugo Reid’s Letters of 1852. Southwest Museum Papers 21. Los Angeles, California.
Heizer, Robert F., and Albert B. Elsasser
1980 The Natural World of the California Indians. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
HistoricAerials.com
2021 Various aerial photographs including the project area from 1948-2005.
Hooper, Lucile
1920 The Cahuilla Indians. University of California Publication in American Archaeology and Ethnology. Vol. 16 No. 6. Reprinted by Malki Museum Press. Banning, California.
Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, Ethel Grace Rensch, William N. Abeloe, and revised by Douglas E. Kyle
1990 Historic Spots in California, Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
Hudson, D. Travis
1971 Proto-Gabrielino Patterns of Territorial Organization in Southern Coastal California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 7(2):49–76.
James, Harry C.
1960 The Cahuilla Indians. Los Angeles: Westernlore Press. Reprinted in 1969 and 1985 by Malki Museum Press. Banning, California.
893
C ULTURAL RESOU RCES ASSESSMENT
M ARCH 2022
H ILTON I NDUSTRIAL F ACILITY B USINESS P ARK P ROJECT
F ONTANA , C ALIFORNIA
R:\CFN2005.06_Hilton Warehouse\Technical Studies\Cultural\Report\Hilton Ind Fac Biz Pk CRA.docx (03/17/22) 11 Johnston, Bernice E.
1962 California’s Gabrielino Indians. Frederick Webb Hodge Anniversary Publication Fund 8, Los Angeles: Southwest Museum.
Kirkman, George W.
1938 The Kirkman-Harriman Pictorial and Historical Map of Los Angeles County: 1860 A.D.
Kroeber, A.L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bulletin No. 78, Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
McCawley, William
1996 The First Angelinos: The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Banning and Novato: Malki Museum Press and Ballena Press.
McGroarty, John Steve
1914 Southern California. Southern California Panama Exposition Commission.
Moratto, Michael J.
2004 California Archaeology. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press. Originally published 1984.
Norris, R.M., and R.W. Webb
1976 Geology of California, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Santa Barbara.
Richards, Elizabeth W.
1966 Guideposts to History: Concerning Origins of Place and Street Names in San Bernardino County. Santa Fe Federal Savings.
Schoenherr, Allan A.
1992 A Natural History of California. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Sharp, R.P.
1976 Geology: Field Guide to Southern California. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Second Edition: 181.
Strong, William D.
1929 Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 26(1): 1–358. Berkeley.
Swope, Karen, and Meg McDonald
1985 Environmental Impact Evaluation: Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Tract 13000, City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. ARU UCR. 894
C ULTURAL RESOU RCES ASSESSMENT
M ARCH 2022
H ILTON I NDUSTRIAL F ACILITY B USINESS P ARK P ROJECT
F ONTANA , C ALIFORNIA
R:\CFN2005.06_Hilton Warehouse\Technical Studies\Cultural\Report\Hilton Ind Fac Biz Pk CRA.docx (03/17/22) 12 Tang, Bai "Tom," Deirdre Encarnacion, Terri Jacquemain, and Daniel Ballester 2013 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: Vulcan Conservation and Flood Control Project, in and near the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. CRM Tech.
USGS (United States Geological Survey)
1980 Fontana, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map.
Wallace, William J.
1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11(3):214–230.
1978 Post-Pleistocene Archaeology. In California, edited by R. Heizer, pp. 550–563. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8. W.C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Warren, Claude N.
1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(3). Portales. 1984 The Desert Region. In California Archaeology, by M. Moratto with contributions by D.A.
Fredrickson, C. Raven, and C. N. Warren, pp. 339–430. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.
Warren, Claude N., and Robert H. Crabtree
1986 Prehistory of the Southwestern Area. In W.L. D’Azevedo ed., Handbook of the North American Indians, Vol. 11, Great Basin, pp. 183–193. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.
895
C ULTURAL RESOU RCES ASSESSMENT
M ARCH 2022
H ILTON I NDUSTRIAL F ACILITY B USINESS P ARK P ROJECT
F ONTANA , C ALIFORNIA
R:\CFN2005.06_Hilton Warehouse\Technical Studies\Cultural\Report\Hilton Ind Fac Biz Pk CRA.docx (03/17/22)
APPENDIX A
RECORDS SEARCH BIBLIOGRAPHY
896
Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s) ResourcesOther IDs SB-01189 1981 CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT ON THE
RANCHO FONTANA PROJECT LOCATED
IN THE FONTANA AREA OF THE COUNTY
OF SAN BERNARDINO
SCIENTIFIC RESOURCE
SURVEYS, INC.
SCIENTIFIC
RESOURCE SURVEYS,
INC.
NADB-R - 1061189;
Voided - 81-9.7
SB-01501 1985 CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY REPORT
FOR THE ETIWANDA PIPELINE AND
POWER PLANT EIR
SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES
SURVEYS, INC.
MASON, ROGER D.NADB-R - 1061501;
Voided - 85-7.6
SB-01506 1985 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION:
ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF
TENTATIVE TRACT 13000, CITY OF
FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RESEARCH UNIT, UCR
SWOPE, KAREN K. and
MEG MCDONALD
NADB-R - 1061506;
Voided - 85-9.2
SB-02033 1990 A PHASE I ARCHAEOLOGICAL
INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED
LEWIS HOMES' PROJECT AREA,
FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
MCKENNA ET AL.MCKENNA, JEANETTE
A.
NADB-R - 1062033;
Voided - 90-5.2
SB-02502 1992 CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY OF A
FIVE-ACRE PARCEL NEAR FONTANA, SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
RESEARCH ASSOCIATESSWOPE, KAREN K.NADB-R - 1062502;
Voided - 92-2.3
SB-02621 1992 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL
RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS WITHIN
THE NORTH FONTANA INFRASTRUCTURE
AREA, CITY OF FONTANA, SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
CONSULTING SERVICES
ALEXANDROWICZ, J.
STEVEN, ANNE Q.
DUFFIELD-STOLL,
JEANETTE A.
MCKENNA, SUSAN R.
ALEXANDROWICZ,
ARTHUR A. KUHNER,
and ERIC SCOTT
36-004296, 36-006110, 36-006111,
36-006251, 36-006583, 36-006584,
36-006585, 36-006586, 36-006587,
36-006588, 36-006589, 36-006807,
36-006808, 36-006809, 36-006810,
36-006811, 36-006812, 36-006813,
36-006814, 36-006815, 36-006816
NADB-R - 1062621;
Voided - 92-2.20A-B
SB-03050 1995 A CULTURAL RESOURCES
RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY OF
WESTGATE PROPERTY (1000 +/- ACRES)
IN THE CITY OF FONTANA, SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA
MCKENNA ET ALMCKENNA, JEANETTE
A.
36-006901NADB-R - 1063050
SB-04176 2003 CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATION
OF STATE ROUTE 66 (FOOTHILL BLVD)
WIDENING PROJECT, PHASE II, CITY OF
FONTANA, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,
CA. 72PP
CHAMBERS GROUP, INCCOTTERMAN, CARY D.,
EVELYN N. CHANDLER,
and ROGER D. MASON
NADB-R - 1064176
SB-04244 2004 CA 8525 (SNOWBALL), FONTANA. 10PP MCKENNA ET ALMCKENNA, JEANETTE A.
NADB-R - 1064244
897
Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s) ResourcesOther IDs SB-04538 2004 CA 8525 (SNOWBALL). 8PP MCKENNA ET ALMCKENNA, JEANETTE A.
NADB-R - 1064538
SB-04539 2004 CA 8525B (EXCISE). 10PP MCKENNA ET ALMCKENNA, JEANETTE A.
NADB-R - 1064539
SB-04869 2005 Cultural Resource Records Search and Site Visit Results for Cingular
Telecommunications Facility Candidate
LSANCA8114B (First Choice Self Storage),
14750 Foothill Boulevard, Fontana, San
Bernardino County, California.
Bonner, Wayne H. and
Marnie Aislin-Kay
NADB-R - 1064869
SB-05062 2005 An Archaeological Records Search and
Survey Report: APN's 1110-331-005 to -12
and -22; 1110-161-021 to -023 and 110-331-
003, Tracts 16526, 16604 & 17010, +/- 58-
acre Property, City of Fontana, San
Bernardino County, California.
L&L Environmental, IncHoover, Anna M.NADB-R - 1065062
SB-05498 2003 Historical Resources Compliance Report for Relinquishment of State Route 66 (Foothill
Boulevard), City of Fontana, San Bernardino
County, California.
Caltrans District 8Hammond, Christie 36-002910Caltrans - ; NADB-R - 1065498
SB-05498A 2003 Historical Resources Evaluation Report for the Relinquishment of State Route 66
(Foothill Boulevard) Between East Avenue/
Ilex Street and Maple Avenue city of Fontana
San Bernardino, CA
Caltrans District 8Christie Hammond
SB-05869 2007 Cultural Resources Evaluation Report for the Cherry Avenue Road Widening Project, West
Fontana, San Bernardino County, California.
Mason, Roger D. and
Cary Cotterman
36-013921, 36-021695, 36-021696NADB-R - 1065869
SB-05911 2007 The Standard in Environmental Risk
Information, Cherry Line 14800 Baseline
Avenue, Fontana, CA 92366, Inquiry Number:
2012679.7s
Environmental Data
Resources inc
SB-05999 2008 Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties: Northeast Recycled Water
Expansion Projects in and near the Cities of
Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana, San
Bernardino County, California.
CRMTECHTang, Bai “Tom”, John J.
Eddy, Harry M. Quinn,
Terri Jacquemain, Daniel
Ballester, and Laura
Hensley Shaker
NADB-R - 1065999
898
Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s) ResourcesOther IDs SB-06000 2008 Extended Phase I Historical/Archaeological Resources Study: Northeast Recycled Water
Expansion Projects in and near the Cities of
Rancho Cucamonga and Fontana, San
Bernardino County, California.
CRM TECHTang, Bai “Tom”, John J.
Eddy, Harry M. Quinn,
Terri Jacquemain, Daniel
Ballester, and Laura
Hensley Shaker
NADB-R - 1066000
SB-06534 2009 Cultural Resource Records Search and Site Visit Results for Verizon Wireless Candidate
Cherryline, 14337 Baseline Avenue, Fontana,
San Bernardino County, California.
Michael Brandman
Associates
Bonner, Wayne H. and
Arabesque Said
NADB-R - 1066534
SB-07048 2012 Cultural Resource Assessment Study for
Verizon "Hemlock" Site in Rancho
Cucamonga, San Bernardino County,
California
Discovery WorksPadon, Beth 36-016454
SB-07401 2013 Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: Vulcan Conservation and Flood
Control Project, in and near the City of
Fontana, San Bernardino County, California.
CRM TechTang, Bai "Tom", Deirdre
Encarnacion, Terri
Jacquemain, and Daniel
Ballester
NADB-R - 1067401
SB-07922 2016 A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Proposed West Fontana Flood Control
Channel, Fontana, San Bernardino Co.,
California
McKenna et al.McKenna, Jeanette 36-029538
899
VIA EMAIL May 11, 2026 Acquanetta Warren, Mayor Salvador Quintanilla, Senior Planner Peter Garcia, Mayor Pro Tem Fontana City Planning Department John Roberts, Council Member 8353 Sierra Avenue Jesse Sandoval, Council Member Fontana, CA 92335 Phillip Cothran, Council Member [email protected] Fontana City Council 8353 Sierra Avenue Germaine Key, City Clerk Fontana, CA 92335 Fontana City Clerk’s Office [email protected] 8353 Sierra Avenue [email protected] Fontana, CA 92335 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Re: Appeal Comment for the California Environmental Quality Act Class 32 Categorical Exemption for the Hilton Industrial Facility Project (Master Case No. 18-000053; Tentative Parcel Map No. 18-000005 (TPM No. 19950); Design Review No. 18-000010) Dear Mayor Warren, Honorable Members of the Fontana City Council, Mr. Quintanilla, and Ms. Key: This comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) and its members living or working in the City of Fontana (“City”), in support of SAFER’s appeal of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Class 32 Categorical Exemption, or Infill Exemption (“Exemption”), for the Hilton Industrial Facility Project (Master Case No. 18-000053; Tentative Parcel Map No. 18-000005 (TPM No. 19950); Design Review No. 18-000010) (“Project”). The Project is scheduled to be heard at the Fontana City Council hearing on May 12, 2026. The Fontana Planning Commission approved the Project based on the Infill Exemption at its hearing on March 17, 2026. As discussed below, substantial evidence shows that the Project will have significant adverse impacts on biological resources. Thus, the Project does not qualify for the Infill Exemption and instead requires an initial study to determine the appropriate level of CEQA review before approval, whether a mitigated negative declaration (“MND”) or an environmental impact report (“EIR”). Therefore, SAFER respectfully requests that the City Council grant 900
Appeal Comment Re: Hilton Industrial Facility May 11, 2026 Page 2 of 9 SAFER’s appeal and find that the Project does not qualify for the Exemption under CEQA. SAFER’s review of the Project has been assisted by expert wildlife ecologist Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. Dr. Smallwood’s comment and CV are attached as Exhibit A and are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project involves the construction of two new warehouses totaling 71,985 square feet on an approximately 4-acre undeveloped, vacant site. The Project site is located north of Hilton Drive, east of Redwood Avenue, and west of Hemlock Avenue, in the City of Fontana. The site is surrounded by industrial uses. The site is zoned West End Specific Plan (BP3) and has a General Plan land use designation of Light Industrial (I-L). LEGAL STANDARD CEQA mandates that “the long-term protection of the environment . . . shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions” throughout California. (Pub. Res. Code § 21001(d) [“PRC”].) A “project” is “the whole of an action” directly undertaken, supported, or authorized by a public agency “which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” (PRC § 21065; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15378(a) [“CCR”].) CEQA requires environmental factors to be considered at the “earliest possible stage . . . before [the project] gains irreversible momentum,” (Bozung v. Loc. Agency Formation Com. (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 263, 284), “at a point in the planning process where genuine flexibility remains.” (Sundstrom v. Mendocino County (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307.) To achieve its objectives of environmental protection, CEQA has a three-tiered structure. (14 CCR § 15002(k); Committee to Save the Hollywoodland Specific Plan v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1168, 1185-86 [“Hollywoodland”].) First, if a project falls into an exempt category, or if it can be seen with certainty that the activity in question will not have a significant effect on the environment, no further evaluation is required under CEQA. (14 CCR § 15002(k)(1).) Second, if the project is not exempt, and there is a possibility the project will have a significant environmental effect, then the agency must perform an initial threshold study. (14 CCR § 15002(k)(2).) Third, if the initial study indicates that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant environmental effect (id.), then a MND is required, but if the initial study shows that the project may have a significant environmental effect, then an EIR is required. (14 CCR § 15002(k)(3).) Here, because the City exempted the Project from CEQA entirely, the first step of the CEQA process applies. CEQA identifies certain classes of projects as exempt from CEQA’s provisions. These are called categorical exemptions. (14 CCR §§ 15300, 15354.) “Exemptions to CEQA are narrowly construed and ‘[e]xemption categories are not to be expanded beyond the reasonable scope of their statutory language.’ [Citations].” (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 125.) The determination as to the appropriate scope of a categorical 901
Appeal Comment Re: Hilton Industrial Facility May 11, 2026 Page 3 of 9 exemption is a question of law subject to independent, or de novo, review. (San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist., (2006) 139 Cal. App. 4th 1356, 1375 [“[Q]uestions of interpretation or application of the requirements of CEQA are matters of law. [Citations.] Thus, for example, interpreting the scope of a CEQA exemption presents ‘a question of law, subject to de novo review by this court.’”].) Here, the City has recommended that the Project is categorically exempt from CEQA’s requirements pursuant to the Class 32 Exemption, or “Infill Exemption.” (14 CCR § 15332.) Under CEQA’s Infill Exemption, a project is exempt from CEQA’s requirements if the project meets the following five conditions: (a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. (c) The project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. (14 CCR § 15332 [emph. added].) DISCUSSION I. CEQA’s Infill Exemption does not apply on its face to the Project, thus a full CEQA analysis is required. The City relies on the CEQA Infill Exemption for the Project. One of the Exemption’s key limitations is that it does not apply if a project has value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. (14 CCR § 15332(c).) Here, the Project does not qualify for the Infill Exemption because the Project site has value as habitat for several special-status species. Therefore, the City must prepare an initial study to determine the appropriate level of CEQA review before approval, whether an EIR or an MND. A. There is substantial evidence that the Project will have significant adverse impacts on biological resources, precluding reliance on the Infill Exemption. Expert wildlife ecologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. has reviewed the Project, the CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption Memorandum (“CE Memo”) prepared by the Lilburn Corporation (“Lilburn”), including the biological resources technical report (“JE Report”) prepared by Jennings Environmental (“JE”), and other relevant documents regarding the Project. As discussed below, Dr. Smallwood concluded that: (1) the Project site provides substantial habitat for multiple special-status species; (2) the CE Memo failed to adequately analyze the 902
Appeal Comment Re: Hilton Industrial Facility May 11, 2026 Page 4 of 9 Project’s significant adverse impacts on wildlife; and (3) mitigation measures are needed to reduce the Project’s significant adverse biological impacts. (Ex. A at 1.) 1. The CE Memo did not fully account for the diversity of species that use the Project site as habitat, including several special-status species. Dr. Smallwood’s associate, biologist Noriko Smallwood, M.S., visited the Project site on March 21, 2026 for a 3.07-hour diurnal survey and on March 24, 2026 for a 1.05-hour diurnal survey and a 3-hour nocturnal survey. (Id. at 2.) During her visit, Ms. Smallwood detected 27 species of wildlife at the Project site, including four special-status species. (Id. at 3.) These special-status species included: (1) the California Gull, a Bird of Conservation Concern with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and a species on the California Department of Fish & Wildlife Taxa to Watch List; and (2) the Red-Tailed Hawk, (3) the Great Horned Owl, and (4) the American Kestrel, all Birds of Prey protected by California Fish & Game Code § 3503.5. (Id. at 9.) During its single one-hour wildlife survey of the Project site, JE detected only five species of vertebrate wildlife, all of which were birds. (Id. at 14.) In contrast, Ms. Smallwood detected over five times the total number of species as JE, including the same five bird species that JE identified. (Id.) Furthermore, JE reported its findings without any justification for its minimal survey effort or comparative context to aid in interpretation of its findings. (Id. at 14-15.) The City must prepare an EIR so that a sufficient survey effort can be completed. Dr. Smallwood found other deficiencies in the JE’s survey findings as well. For example, he found that JE conducted no breeding-season detection surveys for burrowing owls, nor did the JE conduct any detection surveys for the Crotch’s Bumble Bee, a candidate species for listing under the California Endangered Species Act, conflicting with the California Department of Fish & Wildlife’s (“CDFW”) recommendations. (Id. at 17.) Additionally, Lilburn’s report that no rare plants were observed on the Project site is unsubstantiated because JE’s site survey did not comply with the CDFW’s survey guidelines for rare plants. Moreover, Lilburn’s own conclusion that “[a]lthough the site is highly disturbed, there is some habitat within the Project site and adjacent area that is suitable for nesting birds in general,” means that multiple special-status species of birds have the potential to occur on the Project site, contradicting Lilburn’s conclusion that “[t]he site offers no suitable habitat for any rare sensitive species including listed species.” (Id.; CE Memo at 11.) Additionally, Dr. Smallwood found that the City’s desktop review was incomplete. (Ex. A at 17.) Desktop review includes literature and database reviews and consultation with local experts to inform field surveys and interpret a project’s impacts on wildlife. (Id.) Here, JE relied on only one database in its desktop review, the California Natural Diversity Data Base (“CNDDB”) and failed to consult other available databases to augment its interpretation of its findings. (Id.) CNDDB is a “positive sighting database” that “does not predict where something may be found.” (Id.) Dr. Smallwood noted that, by relying only on CNDDB, JE misused CNDDB and screened out many special-status species from further analysis in characterizing the Project site’s wildlife community. (Id. at 17-18.) From his own assessment based on database 903
Appeal Comment Re: Hilton Industrial Facility May 11, 2026 Page 5 of 9 reviews and Ms. Smallwood’s site visits, Dr. Smallwood estimates that about 138 special-status wildlife species are known to occur close enough to the Project site to warrant analysis of their occurrence potential. (Id. at 18.) CEQA requires government agencies to describe the “environmental setting” of the Project. (CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d)(2); Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322.) The “environmental setting” is defined as “the physical conditions which exist within the area which will be affected by a proposed project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15360; see CEQA Guidelines § 21060.5; Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1170, 1192.) By relying on an inadequate desktop review and failing to conduct sufficient wildlife surveys of the Project site, substantiate its survey findings, and provide any comparative context to interpret its survey results, including the fact that the site contains at least four special-status species, the CE Memo and JE Report deficiently described the Project’s “environmental setting” and thereby insufficiently analyzed the Project’s biological impacts. Dr. Smallwood stated that “without a more accurate characterization of the wildlife community, the basis is inadequate for predicting impacts and formulating appropriate mitigation strategies.” (Ex A. at 18.) The City therefore must prepare an EIR to properly characterize the wildlife community of the Project site. (Id.) Given Ms. Smallwood’s identification of at least four special-status species on the Project site, as well as the records of the occurrence of multiple other special-status species near the site, Dr. Smallwood deems the site as habitat for special-status species. (Id. at 1, 17.) Therefore, the proposed Infill Exemption is improper. Further CEQA review is needed to appropriately assess and reduce the Project’s impacts on the wildlife community. 2. The Project will have significant adverse impacts on wildlife that the CE Memo failed to analyze and mitigate. Dr. Smallwood concluded that the Project will have significant adverse impacts on biological resources, including: (a) habitat loss; (b) interference with wildlife movement; (c) traffic mortality; and (d) cumulative impacts. a. The Project will have a significant impact on the reproductive capacity of the Project site as a result of habitat loss. Dr. Smallwood calculated that the loss of habitat from the Project would cause the loss of 13 bird nesting sites and 18 nesting attempts per year, a loss that “would qualify as significant impacts that have not been analyzed in Lilburn (2026).” (Id. at 25.) However, these impacts would not end with this immediate numerical loss of nesting sites, for the reproductive capacity of the Project site would also be permanently lost. Dr. Smallwood estimated that the Project would prevent the production of 52 fledglings and 59 birds per year. (Id.) He concluded that “the loss of 59 birds per year would be a loss of significant habitat value,” and that “the loss of 59 birds per year would easily qualify as an unmitigated significant impact.” (Id.) This is a significant adverse impact that must be analyzed and mitigated in an MND or EIR. 904
Appeal Comment Re: Hilton Industrial Facility May 11, 2026 Page 6 of 9 b. The Project will have a significant impact on wildlife as a result of interference with wildlife movement. Dr. Smallwood concluded that, as one of the last remaining patches of open space in the region, the Project site provides wildlife with essential stopover and staging opportunities, thereby facilitating wildlife movement. (Id.) The Project would deprive wildlife of all such opportunities. However, the CE Memo failed to analyze how the Project would interfere with wildlife movement. (Id.) An EIR is needed to adequately address the Project’s impacts on wildlife movement. c. The Project will have a significant adverse impact on wildlife as a result of collisions with the additional traffic generated by the Project. Dr. Smallwood found that the CE Memo failed to address the Project’s potential impacts to wildlife from road collision mortality as a result of increased traffic generated by the Project. (Id. at 26.) As Dr. Smallwood explained, vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level. (Id.) Dr. Smallwood provided several studies demonstrating significant animal deaths due to traffic collisions in the thousands annually per 100 kilometers of road. (Id.) However, CE Memo did not analyze whether increased traffic generated by the Project would result in significant impacts to wildlife. The CE Memo reports that the Project would generate 625,486 annual vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”). (Id. at 28.) Based on this prediction, Dr. Smallwood calculated that the Project would cause approximately 266 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year due to collisions with Project-generated traffic. (Id.) He therefore concluded that “the project-generated traffic would cause substantial, significant impacts on wildlife,” an impact that Lilburn failed to address. (Id. at 29.) Dr. Smallwood’s calculations constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that “the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts. . .” (Id. at 29.) An MND or EIR is required to properly analyze and mitigate this impact. d. The Project may have significant cumulative impacts that the CE Memo failed to adequately analyze. Agencies must discuss cumulative impacts and mitigate significant cumulative impacts. (14 CCR § 15130(a).) This requirement flows from CEQA Section 21083, which requires a finding that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if: The possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. . . . ‘Cumulatively considerable’ means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. (PRC § 21083(b)(2).) A legally adequate cumulative impacts analysis views a particular project 905
Appeal Comment Re: Hilton Industrial Facility May 11, 2026 Page 7 of 9 over time and in conjunction with other related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects whose impacts might compound or interrelate with those of the project at hand. Dr. Smallwood found that Lilburn failed to assess the Project’s contributions to cumulative impacts on biological resources. (Ex. A at 30.) Lilburn provided no list of past, ongoing, and future projects in the area and no actual analysis of cumulative impacts. Accordingly, there is no evidence to support a conclusion that the Project will not have significant cumulative impacts on biological resources. An MND or EIR should be prepared to analyze the Project’s potentially significant cumulative impacts on biological resources. (Id.) 3. Mitigation measures are needed to reduce the Project’s significant adverse impacts on biological resources. CEQA prohibits mitigated categorical exemptions. (Salmon Protection & Watershed Network v. Cnty. of Marin (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1102 [“SPAWN”].) An agency may not rely on a categorical exemption if to do so would require the imposition of mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant effects. (SPAWN (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th at 1108; Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1198-1201 [“Azusa”].) Agencies also may not rely on mitigation measures as a basis for concluding that a project is categorically exempt, or as a basis for determining that an exception to a categorical exemption does not apply. If mitigation measures are necessary, then, at a minimum, the agency must prepare an MND to analyze the impacts and determine whether the mitigation measures are adequate to reduce the impacts to below significance. (SPAWN (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th at 1108; Azusa (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th at 1198-1201.) Here, the CE Memo expressly states that, as a condition of approval of the Project, in accordance with Mitigation Measure BIO-3 of the Fontana General Plan Final EIR and as recommended in the JE Report, pre-construction nesting bird surveys shall be implemented if construction occurs between February 1 and September 15. (CE Memo at 11.) However, the City’s designation of this requirement to conduct pre-construction nesting bird surveys, should construction occur during certain months, as a “condition of approval” does not make it so. The City cannot escape CEQA’s prohibition against mitigated categorical exemptions by claiming that the required pre-construction nesting bird surveys are a “condition of approval.” There can be no doubt here that the purpose of implementing pre-construction nesting bird surveys for the Project is to reduce the Project’s adverse impacts on nesting birds. Indeed, the CE Memo explains that “a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey, in accordance with the CDFG Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, to determine the presence or absence of burrowing owls within the proposed area of impact.” (Id. at 11-12.) The CE Memo further provides that the “results of surveys, including mitigation recommendations (i.e. a Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Report) shall be incorporated into the project-level CEQA compliance documentation.” (Id. at 12.) Thus, the Project’s potential impacts to nesting birds would not occur but for Project construction. The requirement to conduct pre-construction nesting bird surveys therefore must be considered a mitigation measure, and the 906
Appeal Comment Re: Hilton Industrial Facility May 11, 2026 Page 8 of 9 Project cannot be exempt from CEQA. (See Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City and Cnty. of San Francisco (2013), 222 Cal.App.4th 863, 882-83 [citing SPAWN, 125 Cal.App.4th at 1104, 1108; Azusa, 52 Cal.App.4th at 1187-88, 1199-1200].) Nevertheless, Dr. Smallwood identified several flaws in the mitigation measure for the pre-construction nesting bird surveys described in Mitigation Measure BIO-3 of the Fontana General Plan Final EIR and the JE Report. For example, the mitigation language allows a single individual to make subjective decisions, outside the public’s view, to determine the buffer area and timing for any given species. (Ex. A at 31.) Additionally, the measure fails to define what constitutes a “qualified biologist” to conduct the pre-construction surveys. (Id. at 32.) Dr. Smallwood concluded that this measure lacks objective criteria and is therefore unenforceable. (Id. at 31.) Furthermore, Dr. Smallwood noted that preconstruction surveys for nesting birds would avoid neither the permanent loss of habitat nor the traffic mortality generated by the Project. (Id. at 31.) The mitigation measure would only apply to the breeding season of the preconstruction survey, after which there would be no further production of birds from the project site, since the Project’s impact on birds would be permanent. (Id.) Thus, the conservation benefits of this measure would be minimal compared to the Project’s potential impacts on breeding birds. (Id.) Regarding the mitigation measure’s language on burrowing owl surveys in particular, Dr. Smallwood found that the language is outdated because it does not adhere to the CDFW’s burrowing owl survey and mitigation guidelines and does not indicate whether consultation with the CDFW about whether to obtain an incidental take permit has been initiated. (Id. at 33.) He also found that the language misrepresents CDFW’s guidelines by implying that preconstruction take-avoidance surveys can replace breeding-season detection surveys. (Id.) Dr. Smallwood concluded that breeding-season detection surveys are indeed required in addition to pre-construction take-avoidance surveys. (Id. at 34.) Dr. Smallwood suggests multiple other mitigation measures that the City should implement to effectively reduce the Project’s significant adverse impacts on biological resources, should the Project proceed. Potential mitigation measures include compensatory habitat protection, compensatory mitigation for traffic mortality, donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities, and native plant landscaping. (Id. at 34-35.) An MND or EIR is required to address the issues in the City’s mitigation measure for pre-construction nesting bird surveys and implement the mitigation measures suggested by Dr. Smallwood. II. The Project does not qualify for CEQA’s Infill Exemption due to the Unusual Circumstances Exception. The Unusual Circumstances Exception (“Exception”) prohibits categorical exemptions where there is a “reasonable possibility” that a project will significantly impact the environment “due to unusual circumstances.” (14 CCR § 15300.2(c).) To determine whether the Exception applies, agencies examine (1) whether the project has some feature that distinguishes it from others in the exempt class, such as its size or location, and (2) whether there is a reasonable 907
Appeal Comment Re: Hilton Industrial Facility May 11, 2026 Page 9 of 9 possibility of a significant environmental effect due to that unusual circumstance. (Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1098; IBC Business Owners for Sensible Development v. City of Irvine (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 100, 132.) The California Supreme Court has held that “a party may establish an unusual circumstance with evidence that the project will have a significant environmental effect.” (Berkeley Hillside Preservation, 60 Cal.4th at 1105 [emph. added].) That evidence, if convincing, necessarily also establishes a reasonable possibility that the project will significantly affect the environment due to those unusual circumstances. (Id.) As discussed above, we have submitted substantial evidence that the Project will have significant adverse impacts related to biological resources. The fact that these impacts will occur constitutes an unusual circumstance, thereby precluding the City’s reliance on the Exemption. CONCLUSION The City cannot rely on a CEQA Infill Exemption because SAFER has provided substantial evidence showing that the Project will have significant adverse impacts on biological resources. Therefore, SAFER respectfully requests that the City Council find that the Project does not qualify for the Exemption. The City instead must prepare an MND or EIR before Project approval. Sincerely, Rebecca Davis LOZEAU DRURY LLP 908
EXHIBIT A
909
1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Hayley Uno
Lozeau Drury LLP
1939 Harrison Street, Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612 30 March 2026
RE: Hilton Industrial Facility
Dear Ms. Uno,
I write to comment on potential impacts to biological resources that would result from development of the proposed Hilton Industrial Facility. The project would add two industrial buildings totaling 71,986 sf and 104 parking spaces on 4 acres north of Hilton Drive and west of Hemlock Avenue in Fontana, California. My comments that follow address my concerns that the Class 32 CEQA Infill Exemption proposed by Lilburn Corporation (Lilburn 2026) would be inappropriate for this project because the project site provides substantial habitat value for endangered, rare or threatened species of wildlife, and because cumulative impacts on wildlife would be significant. I am also concerned that the supporting biological resources technical report prepared by Jennings Environmental (JE 2025) mischaracterizes the existing environmental setting, and that JE’s and Lilburn’s impacts analyses are flawed and their mitigation measures are inadequate.
My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I also worked as a post- graduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, wildlife interactions with the anthrosphere, and conservation of rare and endangered species. I authored many papers on these and other topics. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society, and I’ve lectured part-time at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for forty- one years. My CV is attached.
THE WILDLIFE COMMUNITY AS A BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE
Most environmental reviews pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) focus on special-status species because CEQA’s Checklist Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Question IV(a) asks specifically whether the project would adversely affect special-status species. However, this narrowly focused question is part of a larger policy goal of CEQA, which is “to prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man’s activities, insure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop 910
2 below self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities and examples of the major periods of California history.” Pub. Res. Code § 21001(c). This policy is not restricted to special-status species; it also applies to wildlife populations and plant and animal communities, as it must because special-status species are integral members of ecological communities. The CEQA Guidelines Section 21155.1 defines wildlife habitat as “the ecological communities upon which wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and invertebrates depend for their conservation and protection.” This definition is consistent with the scientific definition of habitat, which is that portion of the environment that is used by members of a species for survival and reproduction (Hall et al. 1997). An essential portion of the environment used by any special-status species is composed of the collection of other species of plants and wildlife, because these species provide for special-status species their forage, refugia and nest substrates, and some serve as ecological mutualists; no special-status species can exist in a vacuum of other wildlife. The CEQA Checklist Evaluation assigns priority to special-status species to balance information and cost, but it does not exclude the need to evaluate environmental impacts to other species, which, after all, are members of the very communities within which special-status species inter-depend for survival and reproduction.
The species I consider to be special-status species are those listed in California’s Special Animals List inclusive of threatened and endangered species under the California and federal Endangered Species Acts, candidates for listing under CESA and FESA, California’s Fully Protected Species, California species of special concern, and California’s Taxa to Watch List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx? DocumentID=109406), continental and region-specific US Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ birds-of-conservation-concern-2021.pdf), and naturally rare species such as raptors protected by California’s Birds of Prey laws, Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3505 and 3513 (see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/ Birds/Raptors).
What follows is a summary of a site visit to detect as many of the species of wildlife as possible within the short time available. The survey was also intended to detect as many of the special-status species as possible, but with the understanding that most special- status species are less readily detectable due to rarity and crypticity. Nonetheless, the species detected can indicate the ecological integrity of the site and thus the likelihood of occurrence of special-status species not yet detected.
SITE VISIT
On my behalf, Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist with a Master of Science Degree from California State University Los Angeles, visited the site of the proposed project for
3.07 hours of survey from 06:46 to 09:50 hours on 21 March 2026, for 1.05 hours of diurnal survey and 3 hours of nocturnal survey from 18:04 to 22:07 hours on 24 March 2026. During daylight, Noriko walked the site where accessible, stopping to scan for wildlife with use of binoculars. At night, Noriko affixed a Pettersson M500 acoustic bat detector to a 20-foot pole, and cabled the detector to her computer, which ran SonoBat Live. SonoBat Live identifies bat species based on the bats’ sonograms that are detected 911
3 by the M500. Noriko recorded all species of vertebrate wildlife she detected, including those whose members flew over the site or were seen just off site.
Conditions were sunny with no wind and temperatures of 64-74° F on 21 March 2026, and sunny to clear with 9 MPH west wind and temperatures of 81-77° F on 24 March 2026. The site is primarily annual grassland bordered by mature pine and eucalyptus trees (Photos 1 and 2)
Photos 1 and 2. Views of the project site, 21 March 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
Noriko saw nesting red-tailed hawks (Photo 3), Anna’s hummingbird and California gull (Photos 4 and 5), hooded oriole and bushtit (Photos 6 and 7), Cassin’s kingbird and northern mockingbird (Photos 8 and 9), European starling and black phoebe (Photos 10 and 11), yellow-rumped warbler (Photo 12), mourning dove and house finch (Photos 13 and 14), Botta’s pocket gopher (Photos 15 and 16), Great Basin fence lizard and western side-blotched lizard (Photos 17 and 18), among other species listed in Table 1. Noriko detected 27 species of vertebrate wildlife at or adjacent to the project site, including four species with special status (Table 1).
Noriko Smallwood certifies that the foregoing and following survey results are true and accurately reported.
912
4 Photo 3. Red-tailed hawk bringing a stick to its nest just off of the project site, 21 March 2026. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.
Photos 4 and 5. Anna’s hummingbird (left), and California gull (right) on the project site, 21 March 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
913
5 Photos 6 and 7. Hooded oriole (left), and bushtit (right) just off the project site, 21 March 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
Photos 8 and 9. Cassin’s kingbird (left), and northern mockingbird (right) on the project site, 21 March 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
914
6 Photos 10 and 11. European starling collecting nest material (left), and black phoebe (right) on the project site, 21 March 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
Photo 12. Yellow-rumped warbler with an insect on the project site, 21 March 2026.
Photo by Noriko Smallwood.
915
7 Photos 13 and 14. Mourning dove (top), and house finch (bottom) on the project site, 21 March 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
916
8 Photos 15 and 16. Botta’s pocket gopher on the project site, 21 March 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
Photos 17 and 18. Great Basin fence lizard just off site (left), and Western side- blotched lizard on the project site (right), 21 March 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
917
9 Table 1. Species of wildlife Noriko observed during 3.07 hours of survey on 21 March 2026, and during 4.05 hours of survey on 24 March 2026.
Common name Species name Status1 Note
Great Basin fence lizard
Sceloporus occidentalis
longipes Just off site
Western side-blotched
lizard Uta stansburiana elegans
Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native Mourning dove Zenaida macroura Foraged
Anna’s hummingbird Calypte anna Just off site
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL Flocks flew over Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Nesting just off site Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Called just off site American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Called just off site Cassin’s kingbird Tyrannus vociferans Foraged
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans Foraged
California scrub-jay Aphelocoma californica Just off site American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos
Common raven Corvus corax
Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus Foraged just off site
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Foraged
European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native Nesting along edge House sparrow Passer domesticus Non-native
House finch Haemorphous mexicanus Foraged
Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria
White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys
Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis
Hooded oriole Icterus cucullatus
Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata
House cat Felis catus Non-native
Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae Foraged on site 1 Listed on CDFW’s Special Animals List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx? DocumentID=109406) as WL = CDFW’s Taxa to Watch List; BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Bird of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/birds-of- conservation-concern-2021.pdf); and BOP = protected by Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5, see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Birds/Raptors).
ANALYSIS OF RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY DATA
Noriko detected 27 species of vertebrate willdife, which was a relatively large number for the brevity of her survey effort. All the species in Table 1 would lose habitat as a result of the project and its replacement of natural ground covers with impervious surfaces.
Smallwood and Smallwood (2023) confirmed this habitat loss by measuring the impacts of similar developments on species richness and the abundances of wildlife. Smallwood 918
10 and Smallwood (2023) directly compared the species and the numbers of animals observed prior to development to the those observed after development, while they did the same at control sites. The measured losses of these species resulting from development is indicative of habitat loss, because habitat is defined as that portion of the environment that is used for survival and reproduction by members of a species (Hall et al. 1997).
However, the species of wildlife Noriko detected at the project site were not the only species that were present during her survey, as there are always species that are not detected. To demonstrate this, I fit nonlinear regression models to Noriko’s accumulation of first detections of vertebrate wildlife species with time into her daytime surveys to predict the number of species that she would have detected with longer surveys or perhaps with additional biologists available to assist her. The type of model is a logistic growth model, which reaches an asymptote that corresponds with the theoretical maximum number of vertebrate wildlife species that could have been detected during the survey. The model fit to Noriko’s survey data from the morning of 21 March predicts 32 species of vertebrate wildlife were available to be detected, or 7 more species than she detected that morning (Figure 1). Noriko’s rate of species detections followed along the upper bound of the 95% confidence interval estimated from many other morning surveys we have completed in the Inland Empire region, thus indicating the project site is relatively species-rich for the region.
Figure 1. Actual
and predicted
relationships
between the
numbers of
vertebrate wildlife
species detected
and the elapsed
survey time based
on Noriko’s visual-
scan surveys at the
project site on 21
and 24 March
2026. Note the
confidence interval
(orange) applies
only to the
morning survey
(red line).
Cumulative number of wildlife species detected
0.99YAM
0.89YPM
r2
95% CI 2019-2025 in region
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Minutes into survey
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 919
11 Unknown are the identities of the species Noriko missed, but the species that Noriko did and did not detect on composed only a fraction of the species that would occur at the project site over the period of a year or longer. This is because many species are seasonal in their occurrence, some require more survey effort because they are highly cryptic, and the members of other species would visit the site only periodically while patrolling large home ranges. Surveys on only two days cannot possibly detect all of the species of the local wildlife community.
At least a year’s worth of surveys would be needed to more accurately report the number of vertebrate species that occur at the project site, but I only have Noriko’s one survey.
However, by use of an analytical bridge, a modeling effort applied to a large, robust data set from a research site can predict the number of vertebrate wildlife species that likely make use of the site over the longer term. This analytical bridge draws inference from the pattern of species detections more than it does from the research site, and I note that the pattern, i.e., rate, of species detections is consistent from site to site.
As part of my research, I completed a much larger survey effort across 167 km2 of annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, where from 2015 through 2019 I performed 721 1-hour visual-scan surveys, or 721 hours of surveys, at 46 stations. I used binoculars and otherwise the methods were the same as the methods I and other consulting biologists use for surveys at proposed project sites. At each of the 46 survey stations, I tallied new species detected with each sequential survey at that station, and then related the cumulative species detected to the hours (number of surveys, as each survey lasted 1 hour) used to accumulate my counts of species detected. I used combined quadratic and simplex methods of estimation in Statistica to estimate least-squares, best-fit nonlinear models of the number of cumulative species detected regressed on hours of survey (number of surveys) at the station: 𝑅̂ = 1 1 𝑎⁄ +𝑏×(𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠)𝑐 , where 𝑅̂
represented cumulative species richness detected. The coefficients of determination, r2, of the models ranged 0.88 to 1.00, with a mean of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.98); or in other words, the models were excellent fits to the data.
I projected the predictions of each model to thousands of hours to find predicted asymptotes of wildlife species richness. The mean model-predicted asymptote of species richness was 57 after 11,857 hours of visual-scan surveys among the 46 stations of my research site. I also averaged model predictions of species richness at each incremental increase of number of surveys, i.e., number of hours (Figure 2). On average I would have detected 15.5 species over my first 4.12 hours of diurnal surveys at my research site in the Altamont Pass (4.12 hours to match the 4.12 hours Noriko surveyed during daylight hours at the project site), which composed 27% of the predicted total number of species I would detect with a much larger survey effort at the research site. Given the example illustrated in Figure 2, the 26 vertebrate wildlife species Noriko detected after her 4.12 hours of daylight survey at the project site likely represented 27% of the species to be detected after many more visual-scan surveys over another year or longer. With many more repeat surveys through the year, Noriko would likely detect 26 0.27⁄ = 96 species of vertebrate wildlife in daylight surveys at the site. Assuming Noriko’s ratio of special- status to non-special-status species was to hold through the detections of all 96 920
12 predicted species, then continued daylight surveys would eventually detect 11 special- status species of vertebrate wildlife.
Figure 2. Mean (95% CI)
predicted wildlife species
richness, 𝑅̂, as a nonlinear
function of hour-long
survey increments across
46 visual-scan survey
stations across the
Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, Alameda
and Contra Costa
Counties, 2015‒2019. Note
that the location of the
study is largely irrelevant
to the utility of the graph
to the interpretation of
survey outcomes at the
project site. It is the
pattern in the data that is
relevant, because the
pattern is typical of the
pattern seen elsewhere.
Because my prediction of 96 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 11 special-status species, is derived from daytime visual-scan surveys, and would detect few nocturnal mammals such as bats, the true number of species composing the wildlife community of the site must be larger. Noriko’s reconnaissance survey should serve only as a starting point toward characterization of the site’s wildlife community, but it certainly cannot alone inform of the inventory of species that use the site. More surveys are needed than her one survey to produce an inventory the project site’s wildlife community.
Nevertheless, the large number of species I predict at the project site is indicative of a relatively species-rich wildlife community that warrants a serious survey effort.
MISCHARACTERIZATION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
CEQA’s primary objectives should guide the design and conduct of CEQA review. Four of CEQA’s primary objectives are to (1) accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, (2) disclose potential project impacts to the public and decision- makers, (3) foster public participation with decision-making over proposed projects, and (4) identify issues and feasible alternative mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts. The first objective is essential to the other three, because an accurate understanding of the existing environmental setting is needed to predict impacts, provide the public with the means to meaningfully participate with issues of importance, and effectively strategize mitigation and project alternatives (Figure 3). For 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 10
20 30
40 50
Cumulative number of surveys (hours)
(95% CI)
921
13 biological resources, essential information includes the species composition of the plant and wildlife communities, key ecological interactions, identification of ecological keystone species, determining the presence of special-status species or their habitats, and identifying risk factors that could result in significant direct, indirect and cumulative impacts should the project go forward.
Figure 3. General flow of information from its gathering through characterizing the existing environment to predicting impacts and their significance.
The public and decision-makers need to know which species are susceptible to harm potentially caused by the project and its associated activities, and which are known to be vulnerable to harm once exposed to the environmental changes brought by the project.
For these reasons, field studies are needed to identify as many of the species that occur on the project site as reasonably feasible, and to otherwise examine the environmental conditions for their likelihood to support species that are not detected, otherwise known as “habitat assessment.” A review of species occurrence records – also known as “desktop review” – is needed to identify the other species that potentially occur on the site – a process that is also referred to as “habitat assessment.” Because habitat assessments that are based on either or both field study and desktop review are prone to uncertainty, emphasis needs to be directed to adequate field study to reduce the pool of species subjected to habitat assessment, thereby weighing the review more towards certainty. Appropriately weighted reviews are less susceptible to speculation over species occurrence likelihoods. For this reason, protocol-level detection surveys have been formulated for numerous special-status species of plants and wildlife, and otherwise best scientific practices are needed to provide a reasonable likelihood of detection of species that truly occur on the project site. The negative findings of a properly conducted detection survey are the only findings that can support a determination of species absence.
Assess species occurrence likelihoods
1. Desktop review
a. Species geographic range overlap or database occurrence records b. Crosswalk habitat associations with mapped ground cover
2. Reconnaissance survey/Habitat assessment
3. Detection surveys for special-status species
Outcomes
5. Predict impacts
6. Formulate mitigation strategy
7. Determine significance of impacts
Characterize wildlife community
4. Lists of species detected and of those expected but
not yet detected, and any known trends
Note: Impact predictions and
significance determinations have
been of unknown accuracy in the
absence of experimental
measurement
922
14 Even among reviews founded on the best of field studies, there is always uncertainty over some of the determinations of species occurrences. The uncertainties of habitat assessments need to be managed to achieve CEQA’s primary objectives. This means that the methodological details of both the field studies and desktop review need to be carefully and thoroughly reported, and it means that results need to be reported in context of their uncertainties. For example, the reporting of having detected 10 species in a reconnaissance survey is nearly meaningless without also reporting the numbers of species found in surveys of similar methods and effort levels, and the reporting of the failure to detect a given species is nearly entirely meaningless without also reporting the likelihood that species would be detected given the survey methods and effort level. The same is true of desktop review; that is, there should be some means of validating habitat assessments based on the thousands of habitat assessments that have already been conducted in support of CEQA reviews. If industry standards in environmental review are to be credible, then they must include the use of the comparative method.
In the case of the proposed project, Lilburn (2026) relies on a one-hour reconnaissance survey and an improperly curtailed desktop review, neither of which comports with the findings of Noriko’s survey or my desktop review for known occurrences of special- status species of wildlife. Furthermore, neither JE (2025) nor Lilburn (2026) reports anything about the uncertainties of JE’s findings, which vastly diminishes the accuracy of the characterization of the existing environmental setting.
Environmental Setting informed by Field Surveys
JE (2025) conducted a reconnaissance survey on 24 January 2026 “to identify the potential for the occurrence of special status species, vegetation communities, or habitats that could support special status wildlife species.” JE (2025) deployed one biologist who committed one hour of survey starting at 07:30. In one hour of survey, JE (2025) detected five species of vertebrate wildlife, all five of which were birds. In comparison, Noriko detected these same five bird species within 45 minutes from the start of her survey, because these species tend to be conspicuous due to size, their outsized behaviors, and their diurnal activity patterns. Noriko also detected 20 species of vertebrate wildlife in her first hour of morning survey, or four times the number detected by JE (2025).
Noriko found slightly more species in her one hour than she usually does within the Inland Empire, as her 95% confidence interval of the number of vertebrate wildlife species detected after one hour of survey ranges 16.6 to 19.8 (Figure 1). Noriko’s findings were typical for her, but JE (2025) reports no comparison of its findings to the findings it has made at other survey sites.
Relative to the findings of hundreds of reconnaissance surveys completed by other consultants in California, Noriko’s survey findings were consistent with the averages among consultants, but JE’s (2025) findings came up short (Figure 4). Whereas Noriko found 18% more species of vertebrate wildlife than the consultant average of 22.8 species, JE detected only 22% of the average (left graph of Figure 3). JE’s (2025) findings are discrepant from Noriko’s, but Noriko’s findings are consistent with the 923
15 average numbers of species detected by other biological consultants, so the discrepancy can be isolated to JE’s survey performance at the project site. Until a reasonable explanation can be made for why JE (2025) detected so few species, JE’s survey findings cannot be relied upon to represent the wildlife community of the project site.
Figure 4. Frequency distributions of the numbers of vertebrate wildlife species (left graph) and special-status species of wildlife (right graph) detected by consulting biologists among project sites that were surveyed in support of CEQA reviews.
In no way does JE (2025) or Lilburn (2026) compare JE’s one hour of survey to typical reconnaissance survey efforts or to any standard minimum level of survey effort. No attempt is made to justify the reconnaissance survey commitment of only 15 minutes per acre. Nor is there any attempt to defend the implication that JE’s survey outcome is definitive of the species composition of the local wildlife community. In fact, Lilburn (2026) portrays without question JE’s finding as definitive.
JE’s survey deficiency is lost on Lilburn (2026). Lilburn (2026:11) reports, “No rare, State and/or federally listed threatened or endangered species are documented/ or expected to occur within the Project site.” However, Lilburn (2026) fails to consider the very low likelihood that special-status species would have been detected in one person- hour of reconnaissance survey. Consider the likelihood of detecting white-tailed kite, as an example. Knowing that the nearest eBird occurrence record of white-tailed kite is within 1.5 miles of the project site, and knowing our rate of detection of white-tailed kite with increasing survey duration (based on hundreds of surveys), Noriko’s first hour of JE (2025) = 5 JE (2025) = 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Vertebrate wildlife species detected
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
Consultants
Number of project sites
= 22.8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0 20
40 60
80 100
Special-status species of
vertebrate wildlife detected
Consultants= 4
Noriko = 27
Noriko = 4
924
16 survey (to match JE’s one hour of survey) afforded her a 5% likelihood of detection of white-tailed kite (Figure 5). Even based on all her daylight survey time, Noriko’s likelihood of detecting white-tailed kite was only 11.5% (Figure 5). Noriko would have needed to conduct many more hours of survey to accumulate a reasonable likelihood of detecting white-tailed kite, but the model fit to our data indicates that with more surveys she would eventually detect white-tailed kite on the project site. Noriko stood a low likelihood of detecting white-tailed kite, and JE stood an even lower likelihood of detecting white-tailed kite, but these low likelihoods of detection do not mean that white-tailed kite is unlikely to occur on the site. There is a fundamental difference in meaning between detection likelihood and occurrence likelihood, but this difference is not mentioned or discussed in Lilburn (2026).
Figure 5. Probability of
detection of white-tailed
kite as a function of
survey effort and
proximity of occurrence
records to a project site,
based on hundreds of
reconnaissance surveys
Noriko and I completed
2019–2024. The
probabilities that Noriko
would have detected
white-tailed kite are
depicted for one hour
(P = 0.05) and 4.12 hours
(P = 0.115) of survey.
Lilburn (2026) continues
to misrepresent JE’s
survey findings as they
relate to rare plants.
According to Lilburn
(2026:11), “no plant
species with the CNPS California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1 or 2 were observed on- site or documented to occur on-site in the relevant databases.” However, JE (2025) did not implement the available survey guidelines for rare plants (CDFW 2018). A one-hour walk-over survey was unsuitable for detecting rare plants, and this is true even before considering that JE pursued multiple simultaneous survey objectives. That JE detected no rare plants should be of no surprise considering JE’s gross survey deficiency, but this finding has nothing to do with the occurrence likelihoods of rare plants.
Log10 Survey hours
-0.6 -0.2 0.2 0.6 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.2
0.2 0.4
0.6 0.8
1.0 0
Probability of detection
1.5 and 40 miles
Within 1.5 miles
On site or adjacent
Nearest eBird records
White-tailed kite Elanus leucurus
California Fully Protected
0.4 1584 10 Hours1
P = 0.05
P = 0.115
925
17 Lilburn (2026:11) further states, “The site offers no suitable habitat for any rare sensitive species including listed species.” However, Lilburn did not conduct a survey to support this conclusion. Support for it could have come from multiple reconnaissance surveys conducted at various times of day, or from protocol-level detection surveys.
Detection survey guidelines should have been implemented for burrowing owls (CDFW 2012), Crotch’s bumble bees (CDFW 2023), and rare plants (CDFW 2018), and surveys using best scientific practices should have been directed to bats, pocket mice, and kangaroo rats, and other species.
Lilburn 2026:11) concludes, “Although the site is highly disturbed, there is some habitat within the Project site and adjacent area that is suitable for nesting birds in general.” I concur with this conclusion, but it also means that multiple special-status species of birds have the potential to occur on the project site, contrary to Lilburn’s conclusion that “The site offers no suitable habitat for any rare sensitive species including listed species.” Special-status species of birds with potential to occur on the site include burrowing owl, northern harrier, white-tailed kite, California horned lark, loggerhead shrike, and many others. Lilburn’s conclusions are speculative and inconsistent.
Environmental Setting informed by Desktop Review
To establish its pool of special-status species for assessment of occurrence likelihoods, JE (2025) queried the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) for occurrence records within four USGS 7.5’ Quadrangles. However, the CNDDB is a volunteer positive-sightings database, and as such it can confirm presence but not absence of species because such databases are not designed for this purpose. As noted by CNDDB, “The CNDDB is a positive sighting database. It does not predict where something may be found. We map occurrences only where we have documentation that the species was found at the site. There are many areas of the state where no surveys have been conducted and therefore there is nothing on the map. That does not mean that there are no special status species present.” JE (2025) misuses the CNDDB.
The CNDDB relies entirely on volunteer reporting from biologists who were allowed access to whatever properties they report from. Many properties have never been surveyed by biologists. Many properties have been surveyed, but the survey outcomes never reported to the CNDDB. Many properties have been surveyed multiple times, but not all survey outcomes reported to the CNDDB. Furthermore, the CNDDB is interested only in the findings of special-status species, which means that species more recently assigned special status will have been reported many fewer times to the CNDDB than were species assigned special status since the inception of the CNDDB. Therefore, occurrence records in the CNDDB are most abundant for species assigned special status decades ago, but fewest for species only recently assigned special status. And because negative findings are not reported to the CNDDB, the CNDDB is also inappropriate as a basis for weighting occurrence likelihoods such as absent, not expected, unlikely, low, moderate or high. Whereas the CNDDB can be confirmatory of species presence, it cannot support absence determinations or assignments of low likelihood of occurrence.
And again, the screening out of a species due to lack of occurrence records in the 926
18 CNDDB is the same as an absence determination, and this step is being taken without adequate support of field surveys.
In my assessment based on a database review and site visits, 138 special-status species of wildlife are known to occur near enough to the site to warrant analysis of occurrence potential (Table 2). Not all these species should be expected to occur at the project site, but each of them should be given a closer look to determine occurrence likelihoods and whether additional surveys are needed, or implementation of detection surveys, or whether it would be reasonable to assume presence. Of these 138 species, 4 were recorded on or just off the project site, and another 17 (12%) have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site (Very close), another 74 (54%) between 1.5 and 4 miles (Nearby), and another 39 (28%) between 4 and 30 miles (In region). Two thirds (69%) of the special-status species in Table 2 have been reportedly seen within 4 miles of the project site. The site therefore supports at least four special-status species of wildlife, and it carries the potential for supporting many more special-status species of wildlife based on the proximities of recorded occurrences. Evidence certainly suggests that habitat assessments are needed for these species.
JE (2025) considers the occurrence likelihoods of only 21 (15%) of the special-status species listed in Table 2, which means that 117 (85%) of the special-status species in Table 2 are screened out of the analysis in the first step of JE’s desktop review. Of the 21 species considered, JE (2025) determines all are “absent” from the project site, even though one of them was documented within 1.5 miles of the site, another three were documented between 1.5 and 4 miles from the site, and 14 have been documented between 4 and 30 miles from the site. None of the absence determinations are based on detection surveys or anything more than one hour of reconnaissance survey. These absence determinations are inappropriate.
Mischaracterization of the Wildlife Community
JE (2025) reports on a field survey and a desktop review having been performed, but the field survey was much too cursory and its results are interpreted without any context to survey results from elsewhere, and the desktop review starts with an inappropriately small pool of special-status species after misusing the CNDDB. JE (2025) and Lilburn (2026) often resort to speculation in their analyses of occurrence likelihoods, having not completed surveys appropriate to bats, burrowing owls, rare plants or anything else.
Speculated habitat assessments are highly uncertain, which is inappropriate for precious or rare resources such as special-status species (National Research Council 1986). The true wildlife community remains to be described with sufficient accuracy. Without a more accurate characterization of the wildlife community, the basis is inadequate for predicting impacts and formulating appropriate mitigation strategies.
There is at least a fair argument that can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to accurately characterize the wildlife community on the project site as a suitable baseline from which to predict project impacts and to formulate an appropriate mitigation strategy.
927
19 Table 2. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status species of wildlife at or near the proposed project site, according to eBird/iNaturalist records (https://eBird.org, https://www.inaturalist.org), Jennings Environmental (JE 2025), and on-site survey findings, where ‘Very close’ indicates within 1.5 miles of the site, “nearby” indicates within 1.5 and 4 miles, and “in region” indicates within 4 and 30 miles, and ‘in range’ means the species’ geographic range overlaps the site. Entries in bold font identify species detected by Noriko Smallwood during her site visit.
Common name Species name Status1 JE 2025 Records, Surveys Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi FT In region San Diego fairy shrimp Branchinecta sandiegonensis FE In region Riverside fairy shrimp Streptocephalus woottoni FE In region Delhi sands flower-loving fly Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis FE Absent In region Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Very close
Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE Absent Nearby
Western spadefoot Spea hammondii FC, SSC Absent In region Southwestern pond turtle Actinemys pallida FC, SSC In region Coast horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC Absent In region Orange-throated whiptail Aspidoscelis hyperythra WL In region Coastal whiptail Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri SSC In region San Diegan legless lizard Anniella stebbinsi SSC Absent Very close California glossy snake Arizona elegans occidentalis SSC Absent In region Coast patch-nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea SSC In region Two-striped gartersnake Thamnophis hammondii SSC Absent In region South coast gartersnake Thamnophis sirtalis pop. 1 SSC In region Red-diamond rattlesnake Crotalus ruber SSC Nearby
Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 In region
Cackling goose (Aleutian) Branta hutchinsii leucopareia WL In region Redhead Aythya americana SSC2 Nearby
Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Very close Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC Nearby
Western yellow-billed
cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis FT, CE In region
Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC In region
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Nearby
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC Nearby
928
20 Common name Species name Status1 JE 2025 Records, Surveys Calliope hummingbird Selasphorus calliope BCC In region Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Very close
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC Very close
Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SSC2, BCC In region Snowy plover Charadrius nivosus BCC In region
Western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus FT, SSC In region Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus WL In region
Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC In region
Red knot Calidris canutus BCC In region
Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos BCC In region
Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC In region Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes BCC Very close
Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC In region
Laughing gull Leucophaeus atricilla WL In region
Franklin’s gull Leucophaeus pipixcan BCC In region
Heermann’s gull Larus heermanni BCC In region
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC In region
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL Very close/On site California least tern Sternula antillarum browni FE, CE, CFP In region Black tern Chlidonias niger SSC2, BCC In region
Common loon Gavia immer SSC In region
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Very close American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1 Nearby Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC2 In region
White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Nearby
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Very close
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Nearby
White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, BOP In region
Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, CFP,
BOP, WL
Very close
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3, BOP Nearby
Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Nearby
929
21 Common name Species name Status1 JE 2025 Records, Surveys Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP Very close
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus CE, BGEPA, BOP Nearby Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Very close
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Nearby
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Very close/On site Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP Nearby
Zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus BOP In region
Harris’ hawk Parabuteo unicinctus WL, BOP In region
Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus BOP In region
American barn owl Tyto furcata BOP Very close
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP In region Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Very close/Just off site Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, CCE, SSC2,
BOP
Absent Nearby
Long-eared owl Asio otus BCC, SSC3, BOP In region
Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3, BOP In region Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC In region
Downy woodpecker Dryobates pubescens
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Nearby
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Very close/Just off site Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Nearby
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP Very close
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP Nearby
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 Nearby Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE In region
Southwestern willow
flycatcher
Empidonax traillii extimus FE, CE In region
Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Very close Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE Absent Nearby Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2 Nearby
Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Nearby
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Very close 930
22 Common name Species name Status1 JE 2025 Records, Surveys Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT In region
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 Nearby
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC Nearby
California gnatcatcher Polioptila c. californica FT, SSC2 Absent In region California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC Nearby
Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC In region
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Very close
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 In region Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC Nearby
Gray-headed junco Junco hyemalis caniceps WL In region Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL Absent In region
Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2 In range Southern California rufous-
crowned sparrow
Aimophila ruficeps canescens WL Nearby
Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Nearby
Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus SSC3 Nearby Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Very close
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC, SSC1 Absent In region Prothonotary warbler Protonotaria citrea BCC Nearby
Lucy’s warbler Leiothlypis luciae SSC3 In region
Nashville warbler Vermivora ruficapilla Nearby
Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC In region Northern yellow warbler Setophaga aestiva SSC2 Nearby
Prairie warbler Setophaga discolor BCC In region
Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 In region
Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus WBWG: M In range
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG: LM In region
Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis WBWG: M In region
Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG: H In region
Long-legged myotis Myotis volans WBWG: H In range
California myotis Myotis californicus WBWG:L In region Small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum WBWG: M In region 931
23 Common name Species name Status1 JE 2025 Records, Surveys Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG: M Nearby
Big brown bat Episticus fuscus WBWG: L In region
Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG: M In range Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG: M In region
Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG: H In region Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG: H Absent In region Spotted bat Euderma maculatum SSC, WBWG: H In range
Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG: H In region Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG: H In range
Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis WBWG: L In region Pocketed free-tailed bat Nyctinomops femorosaccus SSC, WBWG: M Absent In range Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG: H Absent In range San Diego black-tailed
jackrabbit
Lepus californicus bennettii SSC Absent In region
Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata In region
Northwestern San Diego
pocket mouse
Chaetodipus fallax fallax SSC Absent In region
Pallid San Diego pocket
mouse
Chaetodipus fallax pallidus SSC Absent In range
Stephens’ kangaroo rat Dipodomys stephensi FT, CT Absent In region Los Angeles pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris brevinasus SSC Absent In region San Diego Bryant’s woodrat Neotoma bryanti intermedia SSC Absent In region Southern grasshopper mouse Onychomys torridus ramona SSC In range American badger Taxidea taxus SSC In region
1 Listed on CDFW’s Special Animals List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406) as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered; FC = federal candidate for listing; CT or CE = California threatened or endangered; CCT or CCE = Candidate California threatened or endangered; CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3511); SSCi = California Species of Special Concern with i = priorities 1, 2 and 3; WL = CDFW’s Taxa to Watch List; BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H); BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Bird of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/birds-of- conservation-concern-2021.pdf); and BOP = protected by Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5, see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Birds/Raptors).
932
24 BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT
The impacts analysis in CEQA review involves prediction. Impact predictions are necessary in environmental review because measuring a project’s impacts directly could not happen until after the impacts occur, and the timing of this type of measurement would come too late for formulating a mitigation strategy or deciding on a project alternative. As noted earlier, the accuracy of the predictions of impacts and their significance ultimately relies on the degree of accuracy in the characterization of the existing environmental setting (Figure 3). Prediction accuracy also relies on experience, of which development projects subjected to CEQA review have been made amply available (Figure 6). CEQA prohibits the use of speculation to predict that potential project impacts would be less than significant (see CEQA Guidelines section 15145.
SPECULATION), so it is experience that must be used. The type of experience proven most effective, and therefore most amenable to achieving CEQA’s primary objectives, is scientific inference, as generally depicted in Figure 6. Scientific inference can be drawn from scientific studies or from the many other projects that have undergone CEQA review. The comparative method enables the use of scientific inference to predict impacts and to predict the efficacies of mitigation strategies, the latter of which should be also amply available in the record.
Figure 6. A framework for arriving at predicted project impacts based on experience with other project sites. Ideally, there is a pool of similar projects in similar circumstances where predicted impacts were compared to realized impacts, and into which the proposed project can also contribute to experience.
Inference
Project site
Preconstruction
study
Predict
project impacts
Preconstruction
studies
Post-construction
studies
Pool of experience
Post-construction
study
Test predictions
933
25 In the following, I analyze several types of impacts likely to result from the project, none of which are analyzed adequately by Lilburn (2026), and some of which are not analyzed at all.
REDUCED PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY FROM HABITAT LOSS
Habitat loss results in a reduced productive capacity of affected wildlife species. The site is proven to serve as habitat to at least 27 species of vertebrate wildlife which Noriko observed on the site, but the number of avian nest sites remains unknown. The surveys that have been conducted on the project site were unsuitable for detecting all bird nests or for estimating total nest density. The alternative method for estimating avian productive capacity is to infer it from estimates of total nest density elsewhere. Noriko completed studies to estimate total avian nest density in similar environments.
Noriko estimated an average 3.22 nests/acre among three of her grassland study sites in southern California, two of which were in Murrieta. Applying Noriko’s average to the 4 acres of the project site predicts 13 nests/year. Assuming 1.39 broods per nest site based on a review of 322 North American bird species, which averaged 1.39 broods per year, then I estimate 18 nest attempts per year. Assuming Young’s (1948) study site typifies bird productivity of 2.9 fledged birds per nest attempt, then I predict 52 fledglings/year at the project site.
The loss of 13 nest sites and 18 nest attempts per year would qualify as significant impacts that have not been analyzed in Lilburn (2026). But the impacts would not end with the immediate loss of nest sites. The reproductive capacity of the site would be lost.
The project would prevent the production of 52 fledglings per year. Assuming an average bird generation time of 4 years, the lost capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production can be estimated from an equation in Smallwood (2022):
{(nests/year × chicks/nest × number of years) + (2 adults/nest × nests/year) × (number of years ÷ years/generation)} ÷ (number of years) = 59 birds per year lost to California.
The loss of 59 birds per year would be a loss of significant habitat value that is currently provided by the project site. Most if not all these birds are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and by California’s Migratory Bird Protection Act, both of which are intended to most strongly protect breeding migratory birds. The loss of 59 birds per year would easily qualify as an unmitigated significant impact.
INTERFERENCE WITH WILDLIFE MOVEMENT
One of CEQA’s principal concerns regarding potential project impacts is whether a proposed project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. Unfortunately, this concern has not motivated any analysis of whether or how the project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. As one of the last remaining patches of open space in the region, the site provides wildlife on the move with essential stopover and staging opportunities.
934
26 TRAFFIC IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE
Lilburn (2026) neglects to address one of the project’s most obvious, substantial impacts on wildlife, and that is wildlife mortality and injuries caused by project- generated traffic. Project-generated traffic would endanger wildlife that must, for various reasons, cross roads used by the project’s traffic (Photos 19―22), including along roads far from the project footprint but which would nevertheless by traversed by automobiles head to or from the project’s building. Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Across North America traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be more intense than nationally.
Photos 19 and 20.
A desert cottontail
runs across the road
in Murietta,
California (top), and
a great-tailed
grackle crosses a
road in the Imperial
Valley (bottom).
935
27 Photos 21 and 22. Raccoon killed on Road 31 just east of Highway 505 in Solano County (left; photo taken on 10 November 2018), and California kingsnake killed by a vehicle on a rural road in El Dorado County in 2024.
The nearest study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality was performed along a 2.5-mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California. Fatality searches in this study found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). This fatality number needs to be adjusted for the proportion of fatalities that were not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error. This adjustment is typically made by placing carcasses for searchers to find (or not find) during their routine periodic fatality searches. This step was not taken at Vasco Road (Mendelsohn et al. 2009), but it was taken as part of another study next to Vasco Road (Brown et al. 2016). Brown et al.’s (2016) adjustment factors for carcass persistence resembled those of Santos et al. (2011). Also applying searcher detection rates from Brown et al. (2016), the adjusted total number of fatalities was estimated at 9,462 animals killed by traffic on the road. This fatality number projected over 1.25 years and 2.5 miles of road translates to 3,028 wild animals per mile per year. In terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 188,191 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 22 times that of Loss et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 53 times the Canadian estimate.
An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project site would similarly result in local impacts on wildlife.
For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) as a basis, although it would be helpful to have the availability of more studies like that of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) at additional locations. My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data resulted in an estimated 3,028 animals killed per mile along a county road in Contra Costa County. The estimated numbers of fatalities were 1.75% birds, 26.4% mammals (many mice and pocket mice, but also ground squirrels, desert cottontails, striped skunks, American badgers, raccoons, and others), 67.4% amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California red-legged frogs, but also Sierran treefrogs, 936
28 western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 4.4% reptiles (many western fence lizards, but also skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species). VMT is useful for predicting wildlife mortality because I was able to quantify miles traveled along the studied reach of Vasco Road during the period of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009), hence enabling a rate of fatalities per VMT that can be projected to other sites, assuming similar collision fatality rates.
Predicting project-generated traffic impacts on wildlife
Lilburn (2026) predicts the project would generate 625,486 annual VMT. During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road in Contra Costa County daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of non-volant fatalities was 19,500 cars and trucks × 2.5 miles × 365 days/year × 1.25 years = 22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per 9,462 wildlife fatalities, or 2,351 vehicle miles per fatality.
This rate divided into the predicted annual VMT would predict 266 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year due to project-generated traffic.
However, some might argue that this prediction relies too much on a study along a road through less-disturbed rangeland that likely supports more non-volant wildlife that is more vulnerable to collision mortality. I would argue that the project-generated traffic would pass through similar rural environments with ample wildlife available to be crushed under automobile tires. Nevertheless, to better represent those reaches of road that are more urban than rural, or that would become more urban with the development of the project, I recently completed my own study of wildlife mortality caused by automobiles along roads that were urban and interfaced between urban and agricultural land uses.
I completed one year of daily pedestrian surveys along 2.7 km (1.713 miles) of local, collector and minor arterial roads in north Davis, California, where I tallied 314 fatalities of 40 species of vertebrate wildlife. Most of the fatalities were small-bodied animals such as Sierran treefrogs, western toads, western fence lizards, 10”- to 16”-long juvenile Pacific gophersnakes, valley gartersnakes and California kingsnakes, as well as bushtits, yellow-rumped warblers, deer mice and California ground squirrels. Most of the animals I found would never have been detected from a moving vehicle, which is why people often underestimate how many wild animals are killed by vehicle traffic.
The animals I found in my study did not include all the animals killed by vehicles on the roads I searched. Many had been removed by scavengers before I could find and count them. (American crows patrol the roads every morning, and so does a large flock of wild turkeys.) Some of the animals are knocked off the road in places where I could never find them, and some were undoubtedly caught and carried away in the grills of vehicles or in tire treads. Most of the Sierran treefrogs disappeared from where I found them within several hours, so daily searches missed many of the fatalities. To adjust for these undetected fatalities, I fit a logit regression model to my fatality finds, all of which transitioned to carcass detection trials after I initially found them. Starting with the first day after each detection, I monitored the carcass trials for 30 days, and I assigned each a body mass estimate based on typical body mass reported in the literature. Predictor 937
29 variables were days since detection and log10 body mass. The relationship between carcass detection probability and the predictor variables is depicted in Figure 9. My fatality finds adjusted by the model results in an estimate of 2,126 vertebrate wildlife fatalities over 1.713 miles of roads in one year, or 1,241 vertebrate wildlife fatalities/mile/year. This rate is 40.9% of the rate measured at Vasco Road, or an estimated 5,748 vehicle miles per fatality. Applying this urban fatality rate to the VMT that is predicted for the project would predict 109 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year in the area around the project that is traveled by project-generated traffic.
Figure 9.
Wildlife
carcass
detection
probability
is a
function of
the number
of days
since
discovery
and log10
body mass.
A reasonable range of predicted mortality is therefore 109 to 266 vertebrate wildlife fatalities/year due to project-generated traffic.
Based on my analysis, the project-generated traffic would cause substantial, significant impacts on wildlife. Lilburn (2026) fails to address this potential impact, let alone propose to mitigate it. Mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible, and they need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project. Given the predicted level of project-generated traffic-caused mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts, and that these impacts would be unmitigated.
938
30 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
One of CEQA’s principal concerns regarding potential project impacts is whether a proposed project would contribute significantly to cumulative impacts of past, present and future projects, or to multiple types of impacts that are cumulatively considerable. Unfortunately, Lilburn (2026) fails to analyze the project’s contribution to cumulative impacts on biological resources.
Noriko Smallwood and I performed an experiment to measure the efficacy of permitting requirements and required mitigation measures at avoiding or minimizing project impacts including cumulative impacts. We revisited the project sites we had surveyed as experts to repeat the survey methods at the same time of year, the same start time in the day, and the same methods and survey duration to control these sources of variation to cleanly measure the effects of mitigated development on wildlife. We structured the experiment in a before-after, control-impact experimental design, as some of the sites had been developed since our initial survey and some had remained undeveloped. All the developed sites had included mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or compensate for impacts to wildlife. Nevertheless, we found that mitigated development resulted in a 66% loss of species on site, and 48% loss of species in the project area. Counts of vertebrate animals declined 90%. We found that “Development impacts measured by the mean number of species detected per survey were greatest for amphibians (-100%), followed by mammals (-86%), grassland birds (-75%), raptors (-53%), special-status species (-49%), all birds as a group (-48%), non-native birds (-44%), and synanthropic birds (-28%). Our results indicated that urban development substantially reduced vertebrate species richness and numerical abundance, even after richness and abundance had likely already been depleted by the cumulative effects of loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat in the urbanizing environment,” and despite all the mitigation measures and existing policies, regulations, and habitat plans.
Experimental evidence demonstrates the need to analyze a project’s potentially significant contributions to cumulative impacts on wildlife. The environmental review for this project needs to include a cumulative impacts analysis.
There is at least a fair argument that can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately predict project impacts based on an accurate characterization of the wildlife community, and as a basis for formulating an appropriate mitigation strategy.
FLAWED MITIGATION STRATEGY
The mitigation strategy needs to be based on a sound understanding of the existing wildlife community. It needs to be known which species occur or are likely to occur on the project site as well as the nature of their occurrences. It needs to known which species are resident and which are migratory. For special-status species, detection surveys should have been completed to either detect the species or to obtain evidence of its absence. Surveys should have been completed to understand how wildlife use the site in their movement patterns. And what was found of wildlife species needs to be carefully interpreted by comparing the findings to the findings from other survey efforts at other sites. Failures to detect species should be interpreted relative to the probabilities of their detections given the survey effort. The mitigation strategy needs to follow the steps 939
31 under Assess species occurrence likelihoods and Characterize wildlife community, followed by Step 7: Predict impacts (Figure 3). However, Lilburn’s (2026) mitigation strategy does not follow from these steps. This pointed out, my comments follow in regular font the summary of each required mitigation measure in italics.
Condition of Approval (MM BIO-3 in Fontana General Plan FEIR) Pre- Construction Nesting Bird Surveys. as recommended in the 2025 Biological Resources Assessment [below], nesting bird surveys shall be implemented prior to construction if construction occurs during the period of February 1 through September
15. ... [According to JE (2025),] Nesting bird season generally extends from February 1 through September 15 in southern California and specifically, March 15 through August 31 for migratory passerine birds. To avoid impacts to nesting birds (common and special status) during the nesting season, a qualified Avian Biologist will conduct pre construction Nesting Bird Surveys ( NBS) prior to Project related disturbance to nestable vegetation to identify any active nests. If no active nests are found, no further action will be required. If an active nest is found, the biologist will set appropriate no work buffers around the nest which will be based on the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, nesting stage, and expected types, intensity, and duration of the disturbance. The nests and buffer zones shall be field -checked weekly by a qualified biological monitor. The approved no work buffer zone shall be clearly marked in the field, within which no disturbance activity shall commence until the qualified biologist has determined the young birds have successfully fledged and the nest is inactive.
If the project goes forward, preconstruction surveys for nesting birds should be implemented, but this measure would not avoid the permanent loss of habitat nor the collision mortality with automobiles. Preconstruction, take-avoidance surveys should consist of two steps, both of which are very difficult. First, the biologist(s) performing the survey must identify birds that are breeding. Second, the biologist(s) must locate the breeding birds’ nests. The first step is typically completed by observing bird behaviors such as food deliveries and nest territory defense. To be successful, these types of observations typically require many surveys on many dates spread throughout the breeding season even for a single species. To identify and locate the birds of all species nesting on a site would require a much greater survey effort than can be accomplished in time allotted by this measure. Many bird nests would be missed.
I predict the project site supports 13 nest sites in the average year. Even assuming all these nests could be found (not likely), the mitigation measure would apply only to the breeding season of the survey. After the breeding season of the preconstruction survey, there would be no further production of birds from the project site. The project’s impact on birds would be permanent. The conservation benefits of this measure would be de minimis compared to the project’s potential impacts on breeding birds.
Furthermore, the mitigation language allows a single individual to make a subjective decision, outside the public’s view, to determine the buffer area and buffer timing for any given species. This measure lacks objective criteria, and it is therefore unenforceable.
940
32 Lastly, the mitigation language includes the requirement that the preconstruction nest survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, and this requirement carries over to determinations of the buffer areas and buffer timing to avoid take caused by construction activities. Undefined, however, is what qualifies as a “qualified biologist” in these contexts. As mentioned earlier in this letter, Noriko Smallwood and I have been conducting surveys over the past several years to estimate total nest density, which is relevant to a preconstruction, take-avoidance survey because our surveys were likewise directed to all bird species that could be concurrently nesting on a site. Searching for the nests of one species is difficult, but searching for nests of all bird species at once is vastly more difficult. For this reason, there are very few published estimates of total nest density, and there are very few wildlife biologists who have experience with surveys for the nest attempts of all bird species on a given site. A technical way to qualify a wildlife biologist for the tasks outlined in this measure would be to obtain an agency Memorandum of Understanding in which the biologist is named and said to be qualified for conducting the preconstruction survey and for determining the take-avoidance buffer area and timing. However, a more compelling means of qualifying the biologist would be to require that the biologist has achieved demonstrable experience with nest surveys and avian nesting behavior. Without a better definition of what is a qualified biologist in the contexts of these tasks, This measure lacks objective criteria, and it is therefore unenforceable.
Burrowing owls. Prior to initial grading or clearing of areas of suitable habitat within the Planning Area (e.g., a vacant site with a landscape of grassland or low- growing, arid scrub vegetation or agricultural use or vegetation), a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey, in accordance with the CDFG Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, to determine the presence or absence of burrowing owl within the proposed area of impact. Results of surveys, including mitigation recommendations ( i.e. a Burrowing Owl Mitigation and Monitoring Report) shall be incorporated into the project-level CEQA compliance documentation. Construction grading/clearing of areas of suitable habitat should occur between September 1 and January 31 to avoid impacts to breeding owls. If occupied burrows are discovered, they shall not be removed during nesting season [February 1 through August 31), unless a qualified biologist can determine that either the owls have not laid eggs or are incubating eggs, or that any young from the burrows are able to forage independently. If initial grading is scheduled to occur during nesting season, the following measures shall be implemented.
If removal of occupied burrows is necessary, passive relocation outside of nesting season shall be implemented under the supervision of the qualified biologist. This shall include covering/excavation of burrows and installation of one-way doors as necessary. One-way doors will allow owls inside the burrow to exit but not allow them to re-enter. The biologist shall wait a minimum of one week before the burrow may be excavated to allow the owls time to leave the area.
This measure is outdated. The burrowing owl is now a candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species Act, which means that this measure cannot be implemented as written. Due to a rapid decline throughout California (Miller 2024), the 941
33 California Fish and Game Commission voted unanimously in 2024 to designate the burrowing owl a candidate for listing under CESA. It is therefore imperative to adhere to the CDFW (2012) survey and mitigation guidelines, and to begin consultation with the CDFW about whether and how to obtain an incidental take permit (ITP). There is no indication in Lilburn (2026) that consultation with CDFW has been initiated.
The measure misrepresents CDFW’s (2012) survey and mitigation guidelines by insinuating that a preconstruction take-avoidance survey can be substituted for breeding-season detection surveys. A preconstruction take avoidance survey is different from a breeding-season survey effort, and it is the last of three types of survey that are intended to be implemented in sequence.
For the burrowing owl, there are three types of surveys recommended and described in the CDFW’s (2012) survey and mitigation guidelines: (1) Habitat assessment, (2) Detection surveys, and (3) Preconstruction survey. The habitat assessment is intended to evaluate the likelihood that the site supports burrowing owls, and to decide whether detection surveys should be performed. The detection survey, otherwise described as either or both breeding-season or non-breeding-season survey, is intended to detect whether the site truly supports burrowing owls, and if so, where and how many. The preconstruction survey, otherwise known as a take-avoidance survey, is intended to determine whether burrowing owls immigrated to the site since completion of the detection survey, or whether they returned to the site since passive or active relocations were performed as mitigation. The three types of survey carry distinct but inter-related purposes, and CDFW (2012) intends them to be completed in chronological order as numbered above.
The first two types of survey support impacts analysis, whereas the third type of survey is a mitigation measure. Burrowing owls can be determined absent at the time of the survey based on evidence derived from the habitat assessment or detection survey, but only if the surveys achieved the minimum standards of CDFW (2012). Whereas an absence determination naturally follows from the negative findings of properly performed detection surveys, the following three questions must be answered negatively to determine absence based on the habitat assessment:
A) Are there occurrence records nearby the project site? B) Is the site’s vegetation cover and height typical of where burrowing owls are found? C) Are there fossorial mammals present which typically construct burrows useable by burrowing owls, or are there surrogate cavities that can serve as nest sites?
If the answers to these questions are compellingly negative, then detection surveys are not necessary, but they could be implemented to make certain that burrowing owls are absent on the project site. If the answers to these questions are affirmative or not compellingly negative, then it should be assumed that burrowing owl habitat exists on the site until detection surveys prove otherwise.
942
34 To question A, the nearest burrowing owl occurrence records are between 1.5 and 4 miles from the project site. These nearby occurrences justify an affirmative answer to question A, and so this part of the habitat assessment warrants a detection survey effort.
To question B, the vegetation on site is typical of the area, and much of it is typical of vegetation where burrowing owls are known to occur. The answer to question B is affirmative, and so this part of the habitat assessment warrants a detection survey effort.
To question C, ground squirrels were not documented on the project site, but the nearest iNaturalist records within one mile from the project site. Ground squirrels construct burrows used by burrowing owls, and these two species mutually alarm-call for predators and survive better together (K. S. Smallwood, unpublished data). The answer to question C should be plausibly affirmative, and so this part of the habitat assessment warrants a detection survey effort.
The answers to all three questions are affirmative. Therefore, breeding-season detection surveys are needed, and these surveys are not to be confused with preconstruction take- avoidance surveys. Breeding-season detection surveys are needed to accurately characterize the existing environmental setting and to publicly disclose potential impacts on the burrowing owl.
As for the measure’s requirements concerning passive or active translocation, the applicant needs to consult with CDFW to determine whether an ITP can be issued, and if so, then under what conditions. Without an ITP, translocations of burrowing owls can be interpreted by CDFW as illegal take.
The same issues around what defines a qualified biologist exist for this measure as they do for the first measure.
There is at least a fair argument that can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to formulate an effective mitigation strategy to achieve CEQA’s primary objectives.
NEEDED MITIGATION MEASURES
Compensatory Habitat Protection: The project would destroy the productive capacity of the project site for birds and other wildlife. The loss of this capacity would need to be offset by compensatory mitigation as near to the site as possible. I recommend a 5:1 mitigation ratio to achieve a no net loss standard, as a 1:1 ratio would simply ensure a 50% loss of habitat between the project site and mitigation site.
The loss of burrowing owl foraging opportunities would need to be mitigated. The applicant needs to consult with the CDFW to learn what mitigation ratio would be acceptable for loss of burrowing owl habitat on the project site, and whether and where habitat is available to be protected nearby.
Road Mortality: Compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that would be caused by collisions with automobiles due to project-generated 943
35 road traffic in the region. I suggest that this mitigation can be directed toward funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures such as reduced speed limits and wildlife under-crossings or overcrossings of particularly dangerous road segments. Compensatory mitigation can also be provided in the form of donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities (see below).
Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities: Compensatory mitigation is needed, and it ought to also include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Many animals would likely be injured during construction and by collisions with automobiles traveling to and from the project site.
Landscaping: If the project goes forward, California native plant landscaping (i.e., grassland and locally appropriate scrub plants) should be considered to be used as opposed to landscaping with lawn and exotic shrubs and trees. Native plants offer more structure, cover, food resources, and nesting substrate for wildlife than landscaping with lawn and ornamental trees. Native plant landscaping has been shown to increase the abundance of arthropods which act as important sources of food for wildlife and are crucial for pollination and plant reproduction (Narango et al. 2017, Adams et al. 2020, Smallwood and Wood 2022.). Further, many endangered and threatened insects require native host plants for reproduction and migration, e.g., monarch butterfly. Around the world, landscaping with native plants over exotic plants increases the abundance and diversity of birds, and it is particularly valuable to native birds (Lerman and Warren 2011, Burghardt et al. 2008, Berthon et al. 2021, Smallwood and Wood 2022).
Landscaping with native plants is a way to maintain or to bring back some of the natural habitat and lessen the footprint of urbanization by acting as interconnected patches of habitat for wildlife (Goddard et al. 2009, Tallamy 2020). Lastly, not only does native plant landscaping benefit wildlife, it requires less water and maintenance than traditional landscaping with lawn and hedges.
Thank you for your consideration,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.
LITERATURE CITED
Adams, B. J., E. Li, C. A. Bahlai, E. K. Meineke, T. P. McGlynn, and B. V. Brown. 2020.
Local and landscape-scale variables shape insect diversity in an urban biodiversity hot spot. Ecological Applications 30(4):e02089. 10.1002/eap.2089
Berthon, K., F. Thomas, and S. Bekessy. 2021. The role of ‘nativenes’ in urban greening to support animal biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 205:103959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103959
944
36 Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of avian mortality attributed to vehicle collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00604-080202.
Bracey, A. M., M. A. Etterson, G. J. Niemi, and R. F. Green. 2016. Variation in bird- window collision mortality and scavenging rates within an urban landscape. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128:355-367.
Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.
Burghardt, K. T., D. W. Tallamy, and W. G. Shriver. 2008. Impact of native plants on bird and butterfly biodiversity in suburban landscapes. Conservation Biology 23:219- 224.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. Sacramento, California.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2018. Protocols for surveying and evaluating impacts to special status native plant populations and sensitive natural communities. https://nrm.dfg.ca.go
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2023. Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species.
Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G.
J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00581-080211
Goddard, M. A., A. J. Dougill, and T. G. Benton. 2009. Scaling up from gardens:
biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:90-98. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.016
Hall, L. S., P. R. Krausman, and M. L. Morrison. 1997. The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:173-82.
Lerman, S. B. and P. S. Warren. 2011. The conservation value of residential yards:
linking birds and people. Ecological Applications 21:1327-1339.
Lilburn (Lilburn Corporation). 2026. CEQA Class 32 Categorical Exemption Memorandum. Memo report to City of Fontana.
Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of bird-vehicle collision mortality on U.S. roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771.
945
37 Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California.
Miller, J. 2024. Petition Before the California Fish and Game Commission to list California populations of the Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) as Endangered or Threatened Under the California Endangered Species Act. Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Burrowing Owl Preservation Society, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Urban Bird Foundation, Central Valley Bird Club, San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society.
Narango, D. L., D. W. Tallamy, and P. P. Marra. 2017. Native plants improve breeding and foraging habitat for an insectivorous bird. Biological Conservation 213:42-50.
National Research Council. 1986. Ecological knowledge and environmental problem- solving: concepts and case studies. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Santos, S. M., F. Carvalho, and A. Mira. 2011. How long do the dead survive on the road? Carcass persistence probability and implications for road-kill monitoring surveys.
PLoS ONE 6(9): e25383. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025383
Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216
Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2023. Measured effects of anthropogenic development on vertebrate wildlife diversity. Diversity 15, 1037. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15101037.
Smallwood, N. L. and E. M. Wood. 2022. The ecological role of native plant landscaping in residential yards to urban wildlife. Ecosphere 2022;e4360.
Tallamy, D.W. 2020. Nature’s Best Hope: A New Approach to Conservation that Starts in Your Yard. Timber Press.
Wood, E. M., and S. Esaian. 2020. The importance of street trees to urban avifauna.
Ecological Applications. 0:e02149.
Young, H. 1948. A comparative study of nesting birds in a five-acre park. The Wilson Bulletin 61:36-47.
946
16498.00432\45091390.1
1905 Business Center Drive ● San Bernardino ● CA 92408 ● 909-890-1818 ● Fax 909-890-1809
June 11, 2026
Ms. Alexia Barberena
City of Fontana
8353 Sierra Avenue
Fontana CA 92335
SUBJECT: Responses to Appeal Comments Received in Lozeau Drury LLP’s Letter Regarding Categorical Exemption for the Hilton Industrial Facility Project (Master Case No. 18 -000053; Tentative Parcel Map No. 18 -000005 (TPM No. 19950); Design Review No. 18-000010)
Dear Alexia:
This letter has been prepared per the City’s request for Lilburn Corporation to provide responses to the comment letters from Lozeau Drury LLP’s May 11, 2026 Appeal Comment Letter regarding the subject project.
This letter provides responses to the individually numbered comments in the appeal letter, concluding that no new information has been provided to require additional environmental analysis and documents that the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the Class 32 Categorical Exemption (CE) set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15332.
The Justification M emorandum, prepared by Lilburn Corporation and in the City’s files for the Project, provides an introduction, project description, and evaluation of the Project’s consistency with the requirements for a Class 32 CE. Th e Memorandum further evaluates whether any of the exceptions to categorical exemptions set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply to the Project.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 states that a Class 32 CE applies when:
a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.
b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
947
16498.00432\45091390.1
Ms. Alexia Barberena
June 11, 2026